General Medical Council v Amarasingha

An interim suspension may be extended where serious allegations, relevant professional history and the protection of the public justify continued suspension. The court should consider whether conditions of practice would adequately protect the public interest and the practitioner’s own interests. Delay is relevant, particularly where the proceedings have become protracted, but it does not necessarily outweigh the need for protection. The duration of an extension may properly reflect the possibility of an appeal and the availability of later reviews by the regulatory body. An adjournment may be refused where the order is shortly to expire and there is no realistic indication that representation or attendance would occur at a later hearing.

The General Medical Council applied for a further 12-month extension of an interim suspension imposed on Dr Amarasingha by the Interim Orders Committee. The allegations concerned requesting a loan from a patient’s carer and removing patient files. The allegations had been admitted, and the doctor had previously been found guilty of serious professional misconduct. The doctor did not attend and was not represented, but his solicitors requested a short adjournment. The court considered whether the application should be adjourned, whether conditions could replace suspension, the appropriate duration of any extension, and costs.

1. The application for a further 12-month extension of the interim suspension was granted. The allegations were serious, there was evidence that they had been admitted, and the doctor’s previous findings of serious professional misconduct were relevant to the assessment of risk and the public interest.
2. The court accepted the Interim Orders Committee’s conclusion that no conditions of practice would adequately protect the public interest and the doctor’s own interests. That conclusion remained justified on the evidence before the court.
3. The request for an adjournment was refused. The existing suspension was due to expire on 19 August, the doctor had not attended recent hearings, and there was no indication that he or a representative would attend if the matter were postponed.
4. The court recognised that the proceedings had become protracted and that some delay had resulted from the doctor’s requests for adjournments. Nevertheless, a 12-month extension was justified, including because an adverse substantive decision might be followed by an appeal. The Interim Orders Committee retained a duty to review the suspension, and other committees could reconsider the position. Any satisfactory alternative to suspension would therefore require consideration if put forward.
5. The GMC’s costs were summarily assessed at £3,000. The court considered the claimed work excessive for an application of this nature, although the GMC was required by statute to make the application.