Doctor Peter Roach v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 1114 (Admin)
Dr Antonio Metastasio v General Medical Council
26 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1918 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor had sex with a former patient he knew was vulnerable. Even though he's sorry and a generally good doctor, a court ruled that removing his medical license was the right thing to do to protect the public and maintain trust in doctors.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Antonio Metastasio's name was erased from the medical register by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (Tribunal) on grounds of misconduct.
- •Dr. Metastasio was a Consultant Psychiatrist who treated Patient A (referred to as 'M' to protect anonymity) for a week in November 2017.
- •After Patient A's treatment, Dr. Metastasio contacted her through social media, paid for sexual services, and sought further meetings.
- •The central issue was whether Dr. Metastasio knew Patient A was his former patient when he engaged in the conduct.
Legal Principles
Overarching objective of the GMC is the protection of the public.
Section 1(1A) of the Medical Act 1983
Tribunal's three-stage approach: factual findings, fitness to practice, and sanction.
Medical Act 1983, Section 35C
Appeal is by way of rehearing; court can substitute its own decision.
Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983; Sastry v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623
Appellate caution when reviewing findings based on witness credibility.
Gupta v General Medical Council [2001] UKPC 61; Jagjivan [2017] EWHC 1247 (Admin); Sait v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 3279 (Admin)
Sanctions should be proportionate and protect the public; erasure is a serious sanction.
GMC Sanctions Guidance, paragraphs 14, 17, 20-21, 66, 92, 108-109, 143-148
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on all grounds.
The Tribunal's findings of fact and inferences were not wrong; the sanction of erasure was not excessive or disproportionate.