Walker, R (On the Application Of) v General Medical Council

An appeal under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 is a full rehearing. The court decides what interim order is appropriate and may terminate or vary its period. It does not merely review the committee’s legality. Interim suspension requires a fact-sensitive assessment of the seriousness and apparent substance of the allegations, the public interest and the doctor’s interests. Suspension is not automatic merely because serious criminal charges are pending. The court will give weight to a professionally qualified committee’s assessment, particularly where its reasons are full and substantial. Brief reasons are permissible where required by the procedural rules, but they must identify the relevant public interest and show an intelligible balancing exercise. Judicial review, including remission for reconsideration, will ordinarily be available only in the most exceptional circumstances where the statutory appeal mechanism omits that remedy.

The claimant, a registered doctor, appealed under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 against an Interim Orders Committee decision suspending his registration for 18 months. The suspension followed pending criminal charges of manslaughter, theft and an act tending to pervert the course of justice. Some underlying clinical matters had previously been considered by the Professional Conduct Committee, which had imposed a restriction preventing the claimant from working as a surgeon.

The claimant challenged the adequacy of the IOC’s reasons and the proportionality of suspension. The central issues were the nature of the statutory appeal, the weight to be given to the professional committee’s decision, and whether the order should be terminated or shortened.

1. Nature of the appeal. The application was a substantive appeal under section 41A(10), not judicial review. The court had to decide whether the IOC’s order was correct and, if not, whether to terminate the suspension or substitute another period. The section contained no power to quash and remit. Judicial review would therefore ordinarily be available only in the most exceptional case.
2. Reasons. Rule 14 of the General Medical Council Procedure Rules Orders of Council 2000 required brief reasons. Detailed reasons were not expected for an interim order, particularly where disputed facts were not being determined. Nevertheless, the IOC’s reasons were inadequate because they did not identify clearly the public interests relied upon, explain the prejudice to the claimant, or indicate how the different allegations and the previous PCC proceedings had been evaluated.
3. Weight and proportionality. On a full appeal the court would normally give broad credit to a professionally qualified committee’s assessment. Serious charges required anxious consideration of suspension, but suspension was not automatic. The court had to balance public protection, public confidence and the claimant’s interests, including the practical consequences of suspension. On the material before the court, the IOC was entitled to suspend the claimant and the court would not interfere.
4. Further review. New material concerning the claimant’s explanation for possessing documents and his military appointment and remuneration should be considered by the IOC on review under section 41A(2)(b), without making final findings on the criminal allegations.
5. The appeal was dismissed. A transcript was directed to be supplied to the GMC with a recommendation that the IOC review its order. The claimant was ordered to pay 60 per cent of the GMC’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.

• Interim Orders Committee of the General Medical Council made an interim suspension order for 18 months under section 41A of the Medical Act 1983.
• High Court (Administrative Court) dismissed the statutory appeal under section 41A(10), while recommending that the IOC review the order in light of new material.