R (on the application of Abdul Jabar Ahmed Sultan) v General Medical Council

Intervention in the General Medical Council’s decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings is exceptional. The court should intervene only where the GMC has erred in law, committed a fundamental procedural breach, or utterly misunderstood the facts. The GMC is the appropriate body to decide whether the material justifies formal proceedings. A claimant must therefore identify a sufficient legal or factual basis for impugning the refusal; disagreement with the decision or the existence of additional material is insufficient.

The applicant, a scientist whose career had been affected by the striking off of a doctor with whom he had worked, repeatedly asked the General Medical Council to bring disciplinary proceedings against two doctors. The GMC declined in 1991, 1998 and 2000, concluding that the later material did not alter its view and did not establish a case warranting formal action.

Mr Sultan had not sought judicial review of the earlier refusals. Elias J refused permission to apply for judicial review of the 2000 decision. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was a sufficient basis for permission to appeal.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Sedley refused permission to appeal from Elias J’s refusal of permission to apply for judicial review.
2. The GMC was the appropriate specialist body to decide whether the material justified formal disciplinary proceedings. Its assessment was entitled to substantial respect.
3. Intervention would be justified only if the GMC had erred in law, committed a fundamental breach of procedure, or utterly misunderstood the facts. The court would not intervene merely because the applicant disagreed with the decision or had submitted further documents.
4. The additional material, including a tape recording, statements, documents said to demonstrate responsible conduct, and comparative disciplinary material, did not establish a sufficient case. Its existence did not show that it was capable of changing the overall evidential picture.
5. Accordingly, there was no sufficient basis to impugn the GMC’s refusal to initiate proceedings, and permission to appeal was refused.

• Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Elias J refused permission to apply for judicial review of the GMC’s refusal to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was refused: [2001] EWCA Civ 981.