Dr Itrat Khan v GMC
[2024] EWHC 1330 (Admin)
Mohammed Adil v General Medical Council
2 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1261
Court of Appeal
A doctor was suspended for six months for posting false and harmful things about COVID-19 online. A court said the doctor's actions were so bad they were worth limiting his free speech rights, because he made people less likely to trust doctors and follow health advice.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Mohammed Adil, a colorectal and breast surgeon, was found guilty of misconduct by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (Tribunal) for statements made in YouTube videos about the COVID-19 pandemic.
- •The videos contained claims that the virus did not exist, the pandemic was a conspiracy, and vaccines were harmful.
- •The Tribunal imposed a six-month suspension with a review.
- •Dr. Adil appealed to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal.
- •Dr. Adil appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the Tribunal's decision violated his Article 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression.
Legal Principles
Article 10 ECHR: Right to freedom of expression, subject to limitations prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for specific aims (e.g., protection of health).
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Section 1(1A) and (1B) of the Medical Act 1968: Overarching objective of the GMC is public protection, including promoting and maintaining public confidence in the medical profession.
Medical Act 1968
Section 35 of the Medical Act 1968: GMC's power to provide advice on professional conduct, performance, and ethics.
Medical Act 1968
"Good Medical Practice" (GMP) and "Doctors’ use of social media" (SM Guidance): GMC guidance on professional conduct, including honesty, integrity, and responsible public communication.
GMC Guidance Documents
Proportionality test for interference with Article 10 rights: Is the interference prescribed by law? Does it pursue a legitimate aim? Is it necessary in a democratic society?
DPP v Ziegler [2020] QB 253
Outcomes
Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Adil's appeal.
The Tribunal's decision was not a disproportionate interference with Dr. Adil's Article 10 rights. His statements were baseless, dangerous, and undermined public health and confidence in the medical profession. The GMC guidance provided sufficient legal basis for the Tribunal's actions, and the six-month suspension was a proportionate sanction.