Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Medical Council & Anor

On a reference alleging undue lenience under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, the court must itself decide whether the disciplinary decision was unduly lenient and whether intervention is desirable for public protection. The decision is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range of sanctions which the disciplinary tribunal, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. It is not enough that the court would have imposed a more severe sanction. GMC indicative guidance is not legally binding, although it provides a useful framework for consistent and proportionate decisions. The court should respect the tribunal’s assessment of risk, remorse and credibility. Intervention is justified only where the statutory threshold is met.

The Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals appealed under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 against a Professional Conduct Committee decision suspending Dr Solanke from the medical register for three months. He had admitted serious professional misconduct arising from a sexual relationship with a patient and falsification of his birth date and curriculum vitae.

The Council argued that the sanction was unduly lenient and that further safeguards, including conditions on practice or a resumed hearing, were required. The central issues were the proper statutory test, the role of GMC indicative sanctions guidance, and whether the PCC’s assessment of future risk justified intervention.

1. Appeal dismissed. The three-month suspension was not unduly lenient and the PCC’s decision was not outside the range of sanctions which it could reasonably consider appropriate.
2. Section 29 requires the Court to consider both whether the decision was unduly lenient and whether action is desirable for the protection of the public. The reference to a decision being “wrong” in CPR 52.11 does not eliminate the statutory requirement of undue lenience. A sanction is not wrong merely because the Court would have imposed a different sanction.
3. The applicable test is whether, having regard to the purposes of the disciplinary sanction, the decision falls outside the range of sanctions which the disciplinary tribunal, applying its mind to all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. The disciplinary purpose is principally public protection, maintenance of confidence in the profession and proper professional standards, rather than punishment.
4. The Court should give appropriate respect to the PCC’s assessment of the practitioner’s attitude, remorse, credibility and risk of repetition. The GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance is not legally binding on the PCC, CRHP or Court, but it is a useful framework supporting consistency, proportionality and attention to relevant issues. A resumed hearing after suspension is not required where the evidence already provides adequate reassurance and no continuing assistance is required.
5. The GMC and PCC were legitimately criticised for failing to investigate fully how the sexual relationship began and what occurred during consultations. That failure did not establish undue lenience on the evidence available. The PCC was entitled to conclude that the misconduct was unlikely to recur, and the absence of a resumed hearing or conditions did not warrant interference.
6. The Court expressed doubt about the practical relevance of double jeopardy where the statutory focus is protection of the public rather than punishment. The CRHP was ordered to pay the costs of both respondents.

The judgment does not state a prior court decision. It records that the CRHP referred the PCC decision to the High Court under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The appeal was dismissed on 5 April 2004, with reasons handed down on 30 April 2004.