Shah Ali v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 2272 (Admin)
Dr Sherine Amin Hendawy Ibrahim v General Medical Council
7 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 131 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was found to have cheated his employer by claiming payment for hours he didn't work. Even though he tried to explain this away, a court mostly agreed he was dishonest and should lose his medical license. One minor dishonesty charge was dismissed due to a poorly worded accusation, but the overall finding that he was dishonest and put patients at risk remained.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Sherine Ibrahim, a 71-year-old doctor with a previously unblemished record, was found by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) to have acted dishonestly by submitting inaccurate timesheets while working as a locum.
- •The inaccuracies involved claiming payment for work beyond the time he actually worked, often leaving significantly early.
- •The MPT also found Dr. Ibrahim lied during an internal investigation into the timesheet discrepancies.
- •The MPT ordered his name to be erased from the medical register.
- •Dr. Ibrahim appealed the MPT's decision on all three grounds (dishonesty, misconduct, and impairment).
Legal Principles
Appeals under s 40 of the Medical Act 1983 are by way of re-hearing.
CPR PD 52D, [19]
The High Court should take into account the MPT's advantage of having seen and heard witnesses and be slow to interfere with findings of fact.
Fish v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 1269 (Admin), [28]-[32]
The test for dishonesty is that set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2018] AC 391, [74]: subjective assessment of the individual's knowledge or belief, followed by an objective standard of ordinary decent people.
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2018] AC 391
Allegations of dishonesty must be clearly particularised.
Fish v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 1269 (Admin), [67]-[70]
On appeals against sanction, the High Court must decide whether the sanction was appropriate and necessary in the public interest or excessive and disproportionate.
Sastry and Okpara v General Medical Council [2021] 1 WLR 5029, [100]-[110]
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed except for the dishonesty finding related to the interview (Ground 2).
The MPT's finding of dishonesty regarding the interview was based on a misinterpretation of Dr. Ibrahim's statement; he did not claim to have been explicitly told he could take his break at the end of the day, only that he interpreted a conversation as implying this.
Findings of dishonesty related to the timesheets (Ground 1) upheld.
The timesheets were misleading, regardless of Dr. Ibrahim's break at the end of the shift defense. The frequency of significantly early departures contradicted his claim, and he knew that leaving early was not permitted and that his actions were unauthorized.
Finding of misconduct upheld (Ground 3).
Even without the interview dishonesty, the timesheet dishonesty constituted serious misconduct. Although financial gain wasn't explicitly pleaded, it was implicit and understood by all parties.
Finding of current impairment upheld (Ground 4).
Dr. Ibrahim's dishonesty undermined public confidence in the medical profession and potentially jeopardized patient safety due to his unavailability when needed.
Sanction of erasure upheld (Ground 5).
The persistent and repeated dishonesty, coupled with potential risks to patient safety, warranted erasure. Mitigation factors were considered, but the severity of the misconduct outweighed them.