Key Facts
- •Dr. David Cook (appellant) appealed an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) decision to maintain his suspension from medical practice.
- •The suspension stemmed from a 2021 arrest for offenses related to sexual activity with a minor, based on online conversations.
- •Cook was charged with four counts: arranging/facilitating a child sex offense, conspiring to engage in penetrative sexual activity with a girl under 13, and two counts of publishing obscene articles.
- •Cook's criminal trial resulted in a conditional discharge for two counts (obscene publications); the jury couldn't reach a verdict on the other two counts, which were left on file.
- •Cook argued his actions were due to severe depression and autism, supported by psychiatric evidence.
- •The GMC argued that maintaining suspension was in the public interest due to the nature of the allegations, even with Cook's improved mental health and conditional discharge.
- •The IOT maintained the suspension, citing public interest concerns and the potential for future regulatory action.
- •Cook challenged the IOT decision on seven grounds, including disproportionality, inadequate consideration of evidence, and inconsistency with prior orders.
Legal Principles
The court can overturn an IOT decision only if it's 'wrong,' requiring deference to the Tribunal's judgment but allowing for assessment in certain areas like sexual misconduct.
GMC v Jagjivan [2017] 1 WLR 4438; Waltham Forest LBC v Hussain & Ors [2023] EWCA (Civ) 733; Harry v GMC [2012] EWHC 2762 (QB)
The IOT must consider whether an interim order is necessary for public protection or public interest, but cannot decide the merits of disputed allegations at the interim stage.
Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] 1 WLR 3423; R (George) v The General Medical Council [2003] EWHC 1124 (Admin)
Lengthy reasons are not required from the IOT, but reasoning must be adequate, especially where the decision significantly impacts the appellant.
The IOT must consider the objectives of maintaining public confidence in the medical profession and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession.
Medical Act 1983, section 1(1B)(b) and (c)
Outcomes
The court overturned the IOT's decision to maintain the suspension.
The court found the IOT's reasoning inadequate and its decision wrong for two primary reasons: (1) undue weight given to the possibility of future regulatory action based on counts 1 & 2, without properly considering Cook's improved mental health, lack of convictions on those counts, and the existing psychiatric evidence; and (2) inconsistency with the previous IOT decision to impose conditions rather than suspension in 2021.
The court ordered a shorter period of interim suspension, ending on August 17, 2023.
To resolve Cook's interim position promptly, while allowing the IOT to consider a medical assessment before a further review in September.