A fair trial for Dr Richard Scott?

Today and yesterday I attended the General Medical Council hearing of the case of Dr. Richard Scott (pictured, with barrister Andrea Minichiello Williams). After one-and-a-half days of legal argument, the GMC panel today adjourned the case in order to attempt to arrange for Dr. Scott's anonymous accuser to attend the hearing. Dr. Scott's accuser did not attend the two-day hearing. If Dr. Scott had been charged with a criminal offence, the case against him would've been thrown out of court by now; but Dr. Scott's case is not before a court of law - rather Dr. Scott is caught up in the quasi-judicial minefield of tribunal land. If Dr. Scott is to receive a fair hearing, his defence barrister ought to have the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. One does not need to be an eminent lawyer to see how manifestly unfair it would be to deny the defence an examination of the only witness against Dr. Scott. That being said, a tribunal hearing can proceed without the accuser being required to attend, and it is most likely that when Dr. Scott's case recommences [probably next year] his accuser will again avoid attending to testify against Dr. Scott and to face cross-examination. Barrister Paul Diamond, lead counsel for Dr. Scott, observed to today's hearing how: "It is very easy to make a complaint if you don't have to substantiate it in a public hearing." I'm appalled that Dr. Scott has already been through a two-day hearing to which his accuser did not have the decency to turn up, only to face the prospect of weeks or months more of stressful waiting for the recommencement of a case which - if there was any justice - should already have been dismissed. A good family doctor is going through an appalling and unnecessary ordeal because of an unwarranted and vexatious complaint.