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
28 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2391 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor had sex with a patient. The panel didn't consider if the patient was vulnerable, which is important. The court said that was a mistake and sent the case back to be looked at again properly.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Onyekpe, a locum registrar, had a sexual relationship with Patient A after treating her.
- •The relationship began with WhatsApp messages after an intimate examination without a chaperone.
- •The sexual encounters occurred on hospital premises and at Patient A's home.
- •Dr. Onyekpe admitted the misconduct but the GMC did not allege Patient A was vulnerable.
- •The MPT imposed a six-month suspension, which the PSA appealed.
- •Patient A's statement initially suggested vulnerability, but she was not called as a witness.
Legal Principles
The GMC's overarching objective is the protection of the public, encompassing public health, safety, well-being, confidence in the profession, and proper professional standards.
Medical Act 1983, sections 1(1A) and 1(1B)
The PSA can appeal an MPT decision if it's insufficient for public protection.
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, section 29
Appeals are by way of review; the court allows appeals if the decision was wrong or unjust due to serious irregularity.
CPR Rule 52.21(3)
Good Medical Practice prohibits sexual or improper emotional relationships with patients.
GMC guidance, Good Medical Practice, paragraph 53
GMC Sanctions Guidance is not statute but must be considered; reasons for departure must be given.
General Medical Council v Ahmed [2022] EWHC 430 (Admin) at [85]; The Professional Standards Authority v (1) The Health and Care Professions Council and (2) Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [26]-[27]
Vulnerability of a patient is an aggravating factor in sexual misconduct cases.
GMC Sanctions Guidance, paragraphs 145-146
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on Ground 1 (procedural irregularity).
The charges inadequately reflected the seriousness of the misconduct by not including Patient A's vulnerability and Dr. Onyekpe's perception of it. This prevented full consideration of the case's gravity.
MPT's decision quashed.
The procedural irregularity rendered the decision unjust.
Matter remitted to a new MPT.
To ensure full consideration of all evidence, including Patient A's vulnerability and Dr. Onyekpe's awareness of it.