General Medical Council, R (on the application of) v Walker

When considering an application to extend an interim suspension imposed by a professional regulator, the court should give considerable weight to the regulator’s decision where it is not challenged as unlawful. The seriousness of a criminal conviction and sentence is a material consideration, even where the sentence is suspended. The court may select an intermediate period of extension where that is proportionate and allows the regulator to review the order promptly in light of further proceedings. The extension should be sufficient to allow outstanding disciplinary matters to progress, while preserving an early opportunity for reconsideration.

The General Medical Council applied under section 41A(6) of the Medical Act 1983 for a 12-month extension of an interim suspension preventing Steven James Walker from practising as a doctor. Mr Walker had remained suspended following an earlier order, and had subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received a suspended sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.

The conviction required referral to a Fitness to Practise Panel. Further potential allegations were also under consideration. Mr Walker opposed the requested extension and proposed that the Interim Orders Committee should reconsider the matter after being apprised of the new allegations. The central issue was the appropriate duration and form of interim protection pending completion of the disciplinary process.

1. The application for an extension of the interim suspension was granted for nine months, rather than the 12 months sought. The period was sufficient to allow the conviction and other matters under consideration to come before the Fitness to Practise Panel.
2. Considerable weight was given to the Interim Orders Committee’s decision to continue the suspension. That decision was not challenged on grounds of unreasonableness or other unlawfulness.
3. The conviction for manslaughter and the sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment were highly material. The fact that the sentence was suspended did not remove its significance or the seriousness indicated by the length of the sentence.
4. The court treated the proposed extension as proportionate because the suspension would return to the Interim Orders Committee within three months, and could be reviewed sooner. That review would enable the Committee to consider any further charges, or to recognise that the conviction was the only outstanding matter.
5. The court considered the procedural position unsatisfactory because the GMC had informed Mr Walker only the previous day that the conviction would proceed directly to a Fitness to Practise Panel. That late correspondence materially influenced the decision and supported an extension shorter than that sought.
6. The Interim Orders Committee was invited to review the suspension fully within two months. There was no order as to costs, because the application was required in any event and the court’s decision was materially influenced by information produced only shortly before the hearing.

The judgment records an earlier proceeding in which Mr Walker appealed against an Interim Orders Committee suspension order. No citation for that proceeding is stated. The present decision concerned the GMC’s application for a further extension and was determined at first instance.