Dr Seamina Khan v General Medical Council
[2023] EWHC 3189 (Admin)
Dr Zoe Sun v General Medical Council
20 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1515 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was erased from the register for dishonesty, even though she had mental health problems. A judge agreed with the erasure because the doctor knew what she was doing was wrong. The doctor had to pay some of the legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Dr Zoe Sun's name was erased from the Medical Register by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal.
- •The erasure was due to misconduct and dishonesty admitted by Dr Sun, spanning 16 months.
- •Dr Sun's appeal was out of time.
- •Expert psychiatric evidence suggested Dr Sun's actions were mitigated by a mental health condition.
- •The GMC initially sought suspension, not erasure.
- •Dr Sun's appeal was argued on both substantive and procedural grounds.
Legal Principles
Overarching objective of the GMC: protection of the public, promoting public confidence, and maintaining professional standards.
s.1 (1A)(1B) of the Medical Act 1983
GMC Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 govern the process of determining impairment and sanction.
General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004
Standards of Good Medical Practice (GMP) and Good Practice in Research and Consent to Research (GPR) are relevant.
GMC's GMP and GPR
GMC's Sanctions Guidance informs the approach to sanctions.
GMC's Sanctions Guidance
High Court appeal under s.40 of the 1983 Act is a rehearing, not supervisory review. The Court can substitute its own decision.
s.40 of the Medical Act 1983; Sastry v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 623
Test for dishonesty involves the individual's state of mind and objective standards; subjective appreciation is not necessary.
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67
Article 6 ECHR requires an extension of time for an appeal only in exceptional circumstances where denying it impairs the essence of the right of appeal.
Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom (1995); Pomiechowski v Poland [2012]; Stuewe v Health and Professions Council [2022]
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal's decision to erase Dr Sun's name was appropriate and necessary in the public interest; it was not excessive or disproportionate. While Dr Sun's mental health was a mitigating factor, it did not alter the nature of her persistent and repeated dishonesty.
GMC awarded costs of £2,000.
Considering Dr Sun's limited means, the exceptional circumstances of the case, and the public interest aspects of the appeal, a reduced costs award is justified.