Harith Alsiwan Altemimi v General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 1731 (Admin)
General Medical Council & Anor v Maxwell Dugboyele
25 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2651 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was found guilty of sexually harassing colleagues but a tribunal said he could still practice. A higher court disagreed, saying the tribunal didn't properly consider the impact on public trust and professional standards. The higher court ruled the doctor's fitness to practice *is* impaired and sent the case back to a different tribunal to decide on a punishment.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Maxwell Dugboyele, a qualified doctor, sexually harassed several female colleagues at the Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust between 2017 and 2020.
- •The harassment included kissing, stroking, hugging, and other inappropriate physical contact, despite repeated objections from the victims.
- •A formal warning was issued to Dr. Dugboyele in 2018, but the behavior continued.
- •A Medical Practitioners Tribunal found Dr. Dugboyele guilty of serious professional misconduct but determined his fitness to practice was not impaired.
- •The GMC and the Professional Standards Authority appealed this decision.
Legal Principles
The GMC can appeal a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision to the High Court if the decision is insufficient for public protection.
Section 40A of the Medical Act 1983
The overarching objective of the GMC is the protection of the public, encompassing health, safety, public confidence, and professional standards.
Section 1A and 1B of the Medical Act 1983
In determining impairment, a Tribunal must consider whether the doctor has acted or is liable to act in ways that put patients at risk, bring the profession into disrepute, breach fundamental tenets, or act dishonestly.
Fifth Shipman Report, as adopted in Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin)
A Tribunal's decision on sanction can be overturned if it fails to adequately consider the Sanctions Guidance or provide sufficient reasons for departing from it.
General Medical Council v Narayan [2017] EWHC 2695 (Admin)
Outcomes
The appeals by the GMC and the Authority were allowed.
The Tribunal failed to adequately consider the impact of its decision on public confidence and professional standards, particularly regarding the seriousness of sexual harassment. It also insufficiently considered the appellant's submissions and Dr Dugboyele's motivation.
The Tribunal's decision that Dr. Dugboyele's fitness to practice was not impaired was quashed.
The Tribunal's reasoning was inadequate and failed to address key aspects of the overarching objective. The court found that a finding of impairment was necessary given the seriousness and duration of the misconduct.
The Tribunal's decision to issue a warning was quashed.
This decision was contingent upon the finding of no impairment, which was overturned.
A finding of impairment was substituted.
The court deemed the Tribunal's decision unsustainable given the factual findings and inadequate reasons provided.
The case was remitted to a differently constituted Medical Practitioners Tribunal to determine the appropriate sanction.
The original Tribunal's decision on sanction was dependent on its finding of no impairment, which was overturned.
Similar Cases
Dr Stephen Higgins v General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 1906 (Admin)
Doctor Peter Roach v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 1114 (Admin)
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2391 (Admin)
DR SUDHEER SHABIR v THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
[2023] EWHC 1772 (Admin)