Shah Ali v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 2272 (Admin)
Ashish Dutta v General Medical Council
23 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1217 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor appealed a decision to remove his medical license. The judge agreed that some of the accusations against him weren't proven correctly, but others still stood. The case will be looked at again.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Ashish Dutta appealed an MPT decision to erase his name from the medical register, following findings of fact against him and a determination of impairment.
- •The appeal involved two cases: AC-2023-LDS-000295 (appeal under Section 40 Medical Act 1983) and AC-2023-LDS-000296 (application under Section 38(8) for suspension termination).
- •Two incidents involving patients (A and C) led to CQC investigations and conditions on Dr. Dutta's practice.
- •Subsequent CQC inspections and a GMC investigation resulted in allegations of dishonesty against Dr. Dutta.
- •The MPT hearing involved significant delays and the withdrawal of some allegations close to the hearing date.
- •The appeal raised grounds of unfair trial due to delay, prejudicial evidence, and incorrect findings of fact, as well as an excessive sanction.
Legal Principles
Appeals under Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 are by way of rehearing, allowing the court to substitute its own decision if the MPT's decision was wrong or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity.
CPR PD52D and CPR 52.21
The appellate court's jurisdiction is appellate, not supervisory; it can substitute its decision but should give appropriate weight to the MPT's specialized understanding of medical professional standards.
Sastry v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623
The test for dishonesty is objective, based on the standards of ordinary decent people; the defendant need not appreciate their conduct is dishonest.
Ivey v Genting Casinos UK [2017] UKSC 67
Tribunals must consider evidence of potential prejudice from delay, and a direction to that effect may be essential for a fair trial.
Hutchinson v General Dental Council [2008] EWHC 2896 (Admin)
A tribunal may admit evidence it considers fair and relevant, even if inadmissible in court.
Rule 34(1) General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004
Outcomes
Appeal rejected regarding Grounds 1 (delay) and 2 (prejudicial evidence).
Sufficient direction was given on delay; no specific prejudice identified beyond memory issues. Agreed bundles with material now challenged indicated acceptance of its relevance.
Appeal allowed regarding Allegation 8 (dishonesty regarding Patient C's cardiac arrest).
The tribunal's finding of a cardiac arrest was wrong due to selective use of evidence and lack of cardiology expertise. Dr. Dutta's statement wasn't dishonest given the anaesthetist's initial agreement and the ambiguous definition of 'cardiac arrest'.
Appeal allowed regarding Allegation 13 (breach of assurances, Dormancy Notice, and IOT condition).
The assurance to the CQC had expired; the tribunal wrongly rejected unchallenged evidence that Dr. Dutta didn't believe the procedures were regulated activities, and insufficiently addressed his belief in his decision making process.
Appeal rejected regarding Allegations 9 (assurances about procedures at Sunderland) and 10 (BBL procedures).
The tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence, even with inconsistencies and memory issues. The tribunal's assessment of Dr. Dutta's credibility and the overall context supported their conclusions.
Finding on Allegation 14 stands.
The challenge to Allegation 14 relied on the rejected Grounds 1 and 2.
Matter remitted to the MPT for reconsideration of fitness to practice and sanction.
The quashed findings on Allegations 8 and 13 require a reassessment of the overall case.