Doctor Peter Roach v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 1114 (Admin)
Dr Stephen Higgins v General Medical Council
25 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1906 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was accused of sexual misconduct towards female colleagues. A tribunal found him guilty and erased him from the register. The doctor appealed, but the court agreed with the tribunal. The doctor hadn't shown enough regret and his actions were considered too serious to allow him to continue practicing medicine.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Stephen Higgins, a General Practitioner, appealed a Medical Practitioners Tribunal's decision to erase him from the register for sexual misconduct.
- •The allegations involved unwelcome sexual comments and actions towards four junior female staff members (Ms. A, Ms. B, Ms. C, and Ms. D).
- •The Tribunal found most allegations proven, including a non-consensual assault on Ms. A.
- •The appeal challenged the Tribunal's findings of fact, reasoning, credibility assessments, and the severity of the sanction.
- •The Appellant admitted some conduct but denied most allegations, claiming consensual interactions or fabrication.
Legal Principles
Appeals under section 40 MA 1983 are re-hearings, not reviews. The Court will interfere with findings of fact only in limited circumstances, deferring to the Tribunal's assessment of witness credibility.
R (Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin); Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin)
The Tribunal has a duty to give reasons sufficient to enable the losing party to understand the decision and consider an appeal. More detailed reasoning is required in exceptional cases.
Southall v GMC [2010] EWCA Civ 407; Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin)
A sexual motive means conduct done for sexual gratification or to pursue a future sexual relationship.
Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin)
Section 26 Equality Act 2010 defines unlawful harassment as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic (including sex) with the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating environment.
Equality Act 2010, section 26
The appropriate sanction must be in the public interest and proportionate. The Tribunal should consider the least restrictive sanction and balance mitigating and aggravating factors.
Sanctions Guidance, paras 14, 15, 20, 21, 67; Sastry & Okpara v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 623
Erasure may be appropriate even without a risk to patient safety if necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession. Sexual misconduct seriously undermines public trust.
Sanctions Guidance, paras 107, 108, 109, 138, 149, 150; Arunachalam v GMC [2018] EWHC 758 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court found the Tribunal's findings of fact and reasoning to be reasonable and supported by the evidence. The sanction of erasure was deemed appropriate and proportionate given the severity and sustained nature of the misconduct, the abuse of trust, and the limited insight demonstrated by the Appellant.