Dr Seamina Khan v General Medical Council
[2023] EWHC 3189 (Admin)
Dr Syed Farhan Hyder v General Medical Council
19 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2945 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor repeatedly lied about his qualifications to get jobs. A tribunal erased him from the medical register because he didn't show he understood why he lied and that he wouldn't do it again. A court agreed, saying protecting the public's trust in doctors is more important than punishing the doctor.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Syed Farhan Hyder, a doctor registered in the UK since 2007, dishonestly made false statements about his MRCP qualifications to medical employment agencies between 2014 and 2017.
- •The Medical Practitioner Tribunal (Tribunal) directed that Dr. Hyder's name be erased from the Medical Register.
- •Dr. Hyder appealed against the erasure sanction.
- •The Tribunal found that Dr. Hyder lacked sufficient insight into his misconduct and that there was a risk of repetition.
- •The appeal focused on the Tribunal's assessment of Dr. Hyder's insight and remediation, and whether the erasure sanction was excessive or disproportionate.
Legal Principles
The overarching objective of the General Medical Council is the protection of the public, involving the protection, promotion, and maintenance of public health, safety, well-being, and confidence in the medical profession, as well as maintaining professional standards.
Medical Act 1983, sections 1(1A) and 1(1B)
In appeals under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, the court undertakes a rehearing and can substitute its own decision for that of the tribunal. The court's deference to the tribunal's judgment depends on the circumstances, particularly reduced in cases involving dishonesty.
Sastry v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623
Sanctions guidance is an authoritative steer, but tribunals are not bound by it and must justify departures. Proportionality is key, balancing public interest with the individual doctor's interests.
Professional Standards Authority v Health & Care Professionals Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319; General Medical Council v Khetyar [2018] EWHC 813 (Admin)
Insight requires identifying and understanding motivations and triggers for misconduct. An assessment of ongoing risk must consider the doctor's current understanding and attitude towards their actions.
General Medical Council v Khetyar [2018] EWHC 813 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal's assessment of Dr. Hyder's lack of insight and the consequent risk of repetition was justified. Erasure was a proportionate and necessary sanction to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession, given the repeated dishonesty over a prolonged period.