David Cook v General Medical Council
[2023] EWHC 1906 (Admin)
Dr David Cook v General Medical Council
2 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1663 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was convicted of online offenses related to child sexual abuse. A medical panel put conditions on his ability to practice, including supervision and longer locum contracts. The doctor challenged the conditions, but the court agreed with the panel, saying the conditions were fair to protect the public and help the doctor recover.
Key Facts
- •Dr. David Cook, a senior respiratory consultant, was convicted of publishing and attempting to publish obscene material relating to child sexual abuse.
- •The Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) imposed conditions on Dr. Cook's registration, including clinical supervision and a minimum 8-week duration for locum posts.
- •Dr. Cook appealed these conditions under s.41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983.
- •The High Court considered the appeal, reviewing the IOT's decisions in September 2023 and March 2024.
- •The High Court had to determine if the IOT's decision was 'wrong' in light of the expert evidence and the public interest.
Legal Principles
The High Court's power under s.41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 allows it to revoke or vary conditions imposed by the IOT, but this is not a merits appeal; the Court must show deference to the IOT's expertise unless its decision is 'wrong'.
Medical Act 1983, s.41A(10); GMC v Hiew [2007] 1 WLR 2007; Sandler v GMC [2010] EWHC 1029 (Admin); Harry v GMC [2012] EWHC 2762 (QB)
'Wrong' means the appellate court disagrees with the original decision despite affording it appropriate deference, not that it was 'wrong in law'.
Waltham Forest LBC v Hussain & Ors [2023] EWCA (Civ) 733
The IOT's decision should be afforded respect due to its expertise in public perception and confidence in the medical profession.
R (Sheik) v General Dental Council [2007] EWHC 2972 (Admin); Howells v GMC [2015] EWHC 348 (Admin)
The weight afforded to the IOT's decision depends on context; less weight may be given in cases of dishonesty or sexual misconduct.
GMC v Jagjivan [2017] 1 WLR 4438
The IOT should impose conditions if there's impairment of fitness to practise posing a real risk to the public or adversely affecting public or doctor's interests, and an interim order is necessary.
Previous Guidance and Current Guidance at §27
The High Court's decision is final.
Medical Act 1983, s.41A(10)
Outcomes
Dr. Cook's application to revoke the conditions was dismissed.
The High Court found that the IOT's decision to impose and maintain the conditions (clinical supervision and 8-week minimum locum duration) was not 'wrong'. The conditions were deemed necessary and proportionate to protect the public interest and support Dr. Cook's mental health, not as a punishment or due to concerns about clinical skill.
Similar Cases
General Medical Council & Anor v Maxwell Dugboyele
[2024] EWHC 2651 (Admin)
Doctor Peter Roach v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 1114 (Admin)
DR SUDHEER SHABIR v THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
[2023] EWHC 1772 (Admin)
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2391 (Admin)