Dr Sherine Amin Hendawy Ibrahim v General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 131 (Admin)
Shah Ali v The General Medical Council
9 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2272 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was kicked off the medical register for lying on a form. The court decided the panel that judged him didn't properly look at all the evidence and needs to look at it again. The court said the doctor might not have meant to lie, but the panel didn't consider this properly.
Key Facts
- •Shah Ali, a doctor, appealed a Medical Practitioners Tribunal's decision to remove his name from the Medical Register due to dishonesty.
- •The dishonesty stemmed from a statement on a Disclosure and Barring Service form where he denied being subject to a fitness-to-practise investigation, despite a pending investigation related to a dangerous driving conviction.
- •The Tribunal found the statement untrue, knowingly made, and dishonest.
- •The appeal raised several grounds, including challenges to the Tribunal's findings on dishonesty, failure to resolve conflicting evidence, insufficient allegation specification, victimisation, and disregard of submissions.
Legal Principles
Section 40 appeal under the Medical Act 1983 is a rehearing, allowing the court to substitute its own decision. The degree of deference to the Tribunal varies depending on the nature of the issue (primary fact, secondary fact, or evaluative judgment).
Sastry v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623, Shabir v General Medical Council [2023] EWHC 1772 (Admin)
Interpretation of 'fitness to practise investigation' in question 7 of the form should be wide, considering its context and purpose; it doesn't necessarily refer only to formal investigations under the Rules.
Interpretation of question 7 on the form
A tribunal must resolve material disputes and provide adequate reasons for its decisions. Reasons need not be exhaustive, but the appellate court must understand the reasoning.
Shabir v General Medical Council [2023] EWHC 1772 (Admin), Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin), English v Emery Reimbold & Strick [2002] EWCA Civ 605
Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits victimisation. To establish victimisation, a protected act, a detriment, and a causal link between the two must be shown.
Equality Act 2010, section 27
Outcomes
Appeal succeeds on grounds relating to the failure to resolve conflicting evidence and the finding of dishonesty (Grounds 1(iii) and 2).
The Tribunal failed to adequately address the conflicting accounts of the conversation between the appellant and Miss Burbidge, a material issue impacting the dishonesty finding. The dishonesty finding couldn't stand without resolving this conflict.
Appeal fails on other grounds (Grounds 1(i), (ii), 3, 5, and 7).
The Tribunal correctly interpreted the 'fitness-to-practise investigation' question broadly. There was no procedural irregularity in the specification of the allegation or the conduct of the hearing. The victimisation claim lacked substance. The Tribunal did consider the appellant's submissions.
Remission for reconsideration by a new tribunal.
The success of Ground 2 necessitates a rehearing by a new tribunal to properly assess the evidence.