Key Facts
- •The Appellant, a Consultant in Acute Medicine, was accused by the GMC of making sexualised comments and engaging in sexual harassment towards four colleagues (Ms A, Ms B, Ms C, and Ms D) between 2017 and 2020.
- •A Medical Practitioners Tribunal found some allegations against the Appellant proved and imposed a 6-month suspension.
- •The Appellant appealed against the Tribunal's findings of fact, focusing on whether certain actions were 'sexualised', 'sexually motivated', and constituted 'sexual harassment' under the Equality Act 2010.
- •The Tribunal found allegations concerning Ms C and Ms D proved, while dismissing those against Ms A and Ms B.
Legal Principles
Standard of proof in GMC cases is the balance of probabilities.
Determination §9
Tribunals must not speculate; inferences should only be drawn if other possibilities are safely excluded.
Soni v GMC [2015] EWHC 364 (Admin) §61
Meaning of 'sexually motivated' involves conduct in pursuit of sexual gratification or a future sexual relationship.
Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin)
Sexual harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010 requires unwanted conduct of a sexual nature violating dignity or creating a hostile environment; both subjective (victim's perception) and objective (reasonableness) tests apply.
Equality Act 2010 s.26(1), (2), (4); Pemberton v Inwood [2018] ICR 1291 (CA)
High Court appeal is not a rehearing; the appellant must show the Tribunal's decision was wrong or unjust; the Court will give weight to the lower court's decision, deferring only where warranted.
Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) §21
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The High Court found the Tribunal's findings of fact, approach, and reasons were sound and adequately justified, rejecting all grounds of appeal.
Allegations against Ms C and Ms D upheld.
The Court considered each allegation in detail and agreed with the Tribunal's findings that the comments were sexualised, sexually motivated and constituted sexual harassment.
Allegations against Ms A and Ms B dismissed.
The Court agreed with the Tribunal's assessment that the evidence did not support these allegations.