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

An interim suspension of a doctor’s registration may continue where there is sufficient information to indicate that fitness to practise may be impaired and suspension remains necessary for public protection, the public interest or the doctor’s own interests. The decision-maker must consider proportionality and whether conditions would provide adequate safeguards. On a statutory appeal, the court may substitute its own view, but should uphold the suspension where the panel’s precautionary decision was justified by the information before it and the investigation remained incomplete.

This was a statutory appeal by Dr Abel Bari against a decision of the General Medical Council’s Interim Orders Panel on 20 September 2005 continuing the suspension of his registration. Earlier suspension decisions had been overtaken by the later decision. The claimant’s fitness to practise proceedings had been adjourned to permit a performance assessment, with a hearing expected after its completion.

The central issues were whether the Interim Orders Panel had sufficient grounds to continue the suspension and whether conditions would provide adequate protection pending the Fitness to Practise Panel’s determination.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court was entirely satisfied that continuation of the suspension was the correct decision on the information available to the Interim Orders Panel on 20 September 2005.
2. The Panel was entitled to consider complaints indicating possible serious deficiencies in professional performance, including communication and practice, together with concerns about unprofessional and threatening correspondence, confidentiality, and working with colleagues in patients’ interests.
3. The relevant question at the interim stage was not whether the complaints had been proved. The GMC was entitled to investigate them, and the Panel could act precautionarily while the performance assessment and fitness to practise process remained outstanding.
4. The Panel had expressly considered proportionality and was entitled to conclude that no conditions would adequately protect the public, safeguard the public interest, or serve the claimant’s own interests. Suspension could therefore continue until the performance assessment had been completed and the matter returned to the Fitness to Practise Panel.
5. On a statutory appeal the court was entitled to substitute its own view. Having heard the claimant, the judge independently echoed the Panel’s concerns about his communication and decision-making. There was no error in the Panel’s decision.

• GMC Interim Orders Panel: On 20 September 2005, continued the suspension of the claimant’s registration.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the claimant to amend his grounds to challenge the effective decision of 20 September 2005, but dismissed the statutory appeal.