Social Work England v Peter Charles Fletcher
[2023] EWHC 2457 (Admin)
General Medical Council v Dr Neill William Roy Carter
13 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3199 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor's license was temporarily suspended. The court extended the suspension for another five months because of concerns about the doctor's health and a past incident with the police. The doctor didn't show up to court. The judge also decided against automatically adding a special rule about who can get copies of court documents in future cases like this.
Key Facts
- •The General Medical Council (GMC) applied for a 5-month extension to an interim suspension order (ISO) against Dr. Neill William Roy Carter.
- •The ISO was originally imposed in June 2021, extended for 12 months in December 2022, and was due to expire on 29 December 2023.
- •Dr. Carter did not appear or respond to the application.
- •Concerns regarding Dr. Carter's fitness to practice stem from health assessments in March 2023 and a police encounter in September 2020.
- •A fitness to practice hearing is scheduled between 25 March 2024 and 5 April 2024.
Legal Principles
Necessity for the protection of the public and the public interest in extending an interim suspension order.
Implied from the court's consideration of the GMC's application.
Proportionality in extending an interim suspension order.
Implied from the court's consideration of the impact on the Defendant.
Considerations of prejudice to the defendant when extending an interim suspension order must be outweighed by the public interest.
Implied from the court's assessment of the Defendant's stated lack of intention to return to work and the seriousness of the concerns regarding his fitness to practice.
Appropriate procedure for service of legal documents.
Order for service by email made by the court.
Outcomes
The GMC's application for a 5-month extension to the interim suspension order was granted, extending the order to 29 May 2024.
The court found the extension necessary for the protection of the public and in the public interest, outweighing any potential prejudice to the defendant. The court was satisfied that the defendant had been duly notified.
The court declined to routinely include a direction in interim extension orders regarding applications by non-parties to obtain documents under CPR 5.4C(2).
The court was not persuaded that such a direction is routinely appropriate, suggesting that a written argument would be needed to justify its inclusion in all cases. While acknowledging the possibility of specific confidential information, the court felt routine inclusion went too far, potentially leading to more private hearings or anonymity which are not normally requested.