Doctor Peter Roach v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 1114 (Admin)
Dr Ravish Roy v The General Medical Council
25 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2659 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was erased from the medical register for having a sexual relationship with a minor. He appealed, but the court said there was too much evidence against him, even with new information, and kept the decision.
Key Facts
- •Dr Roy appeals against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal's decision to erase his name from the register.
- •The Tribunal found Dr Roy guilty of having an inappropriate and sexually motivated relationship with Ms A when she was underage (10-15 years old).
- •The allegations involved various forms of sexual activity and inappropriate communications.
- •Dr Roy's appeal is based on fresh evidence from Ms B, a former school friend of Ms A, who questions Ms A's credibility.
- •Ms B's statement claims Ms A had a tendency to lie and embellish, and that Ms A's relationship with Dr Roy was not sexual until after she turned 16.
- •The court must determine if Ms B's statement is admissible as fresh evidence and whether it would have altered the Tribunal's decision.
Legal Principles
Appeals under s. 40 of the Medical Act 1983 are governed by CPR 52.21.
Medical Act 1983, s. 40; CPR 52.21
The court's function is to review the Tribunal's decision, but it will not interfere unless persuaded it was wrong.
Azzam v GMC [2008] EWHC 2711 (Admin)
Fresh evidence is admissible if it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would probably have an important influence on the result, and is apparently credible.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162
Credibility assessments should consider witness demeanour, consistency with other evidence, contemporaneous documents, and inherent probabilities.
Suddock v NMC [2015] EWHC 3612
Outcomes
The appeal is dismissed.
Ms B's evidence, while apparently credible, would not likely have influenced the Tribunal's decision. Overwhelming evidence, including Dr Roy's admissions, contemporaneous documents, and inconsistencies in his testimony, supported the Tribunal's findings.
Dr Roy must pay the GMC's costs of £12,000.
Costs were summarily assessed, with adjustments made for the number of solicitors present and the duration of the hearing.