Dr Zoe Sun v General Medical Council
[2023] EWHC 1515 (Admin)
Dr Seamina Khan v General Medical Council
15 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3189 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor's name was removed from the medical register for dishonesty. She appealed, saying the medical authorities didn't have the right to investigate. The court disagreed, saying the authorities can investigate even if the police don't prosecute, to protect the public and keep trust in doctors.
Key Facts
- •Dr Khan, an NHS doctor, had her name erased from the Medical Register following a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (Tribunal) hearing.
- •Dr Khan was absent from the Tribunal hearing and did not make representations.
- •The Tribunal found Dr Khan guilty of multiple instances of dishonesty related to applications for various medical performer lists and employment.
- •Dr Khan appealed the Tribunal's decision to the High Court under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983.
- •Dr Khan's appeal challenged the Tribunal's and GMC's jurisdiction to hear the case, arguing lack of power to investigate the allegations.
- •The High Court heard the appeal remotely via MS Teams.
Legal Principles
The High Court can overturn a Tribunal decision under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 if the decision was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity'.
Medical Act 1983, s.40
The GMC's overarching objective is to protect the public, encompassing protection, promotion, and maintenance of public health, safety, well-being, public confidence in the medical profession, and proper professional standards.
Medical Act 1983, s.1; Arowojolu v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 2725 (Admin) at §79
The GMC's power to investigate and the Tribunal's power to adjudicate are not limited to patient complaints or clinical conduct; they extend to broader regulatory action in the public interest.
Medical Act 1983, s.1; GMC v Theodoropolous [2017] EWHC 1984 (Admin) at §§35-40
A CPS decision not to prosecute does not preclude the GMC from investigating similar matters.
Bhatt v GMC [2011] EHC 783 (Admin) at §53
Outcomes
Dr Khan's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court found that the Tribunal's findings were justified by the evidence and that the sanction of erasure was appropriate and necessary in the public interest.
Dr Khan was ordered to pay the GMC's costs of £7,500.
The GMC succeeded in full, and costs follow the event.
Dr Khan's application for permission to appeal was refused.
Permission to appeal is a matter for the Court of Appeal, and the High Court saw no grounds for granting permission.