Singapore Medical Council, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council & Anor

A regulatory body that supplies information to the General Medical Council is not thereby a complainant under the applicable procedural rules. Unless the rules or particular circumstances create such an obligation, the GMC need not consult that body before cancelling disciplinary proceedings. A cancellation decision may properly consider the available expert evidence, the need to prove the facts afresh to the criminal standard, and the realistic prospect of proving serious professional misconduct. The decision-maker may weigh evidence without resolving substantial factual conflicts. The court will not substitute another regulator’s assessment of the evidence for the GMC’s assessment where the reasoning is rational and sustainable.

The Singapore Medical Council investigated Professor Simon Shorvon in Singapore and found professional misconduct concerning medical research involving Parkinson’s disease patients. The GMC subsequently formulated a charge and referred the matter for disciplinary proceedings under the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988.

After obtaining independent expert evidence which did not support a finding of serious professional misconduct, the Chairman cancelled the inquiry under Rule 19. The Singapore Medical Council sought judicial review, alleging procedural unfairness because it had not been consulted and contending that the cancellation was irrational or unsustainable. The court also considered, but did not decide, the claimant’s standing.

1. Procedural fairness. The Singapore Medical Council was an informant, not a complainant, within the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988. The GMC had initiated its own consideration of the matter, while the Singapore Medical Council had supplied information and assistance. Rule 19(1A) therefore imposed no duty to consult it before cancellation.
2. The circumstances also created no wider duty of fairness. The Singapore Medical Council had completed its own disciplinary process, had no role as prosecutor in the United Kingdom, and was not a party whose legal rights or interests were being adjudicated. The GMC was required to apply its own procedures and could not be treated as subordinate to the Singapore Medical Council. The authorities on procedural fairness did not establish a duty on these facts.
3. In any event, the GMC’s email of 12 August 2005 warned of the likely cancellation, gave reasons, and invited observations. The fact that it was not received did not amount to a breach because the GMC was entitled to assume that it had been received. The same communication would have satisfied the obligation to endeavour to communicate under Rule 19(1A), if the Singapore Medical Council had been a complainant.
4. Substantive challenge. Rule 19 conferred a broad discretion. Although the relevant question in this case was substantially whether there remained a real prospect of proving serious professional misconduct to the criminal standard, the power was not necessarily confined to that formulation. The Chairman was entitled to take account of the changed evidential position, including Professor Williams’s independent report, the absence of admissible contrary expert evidence, the decision not to rely on Dr Tan’s evidence, and the logistical difficulties of proving the primary facts afresh.
5. The Singapore Medical Council’s criticisms of Professor Williams’s report did not show that the Chairman acted irrationally. The GMC’s procedure imposed no reverse burden on Professor Shorvon. The Chairman was entitled to assess the expert evidence, without deciding substantial conflicts of fact, and to conclude that there was no reason to expect the Fitness to Practise Panel to reject Professor Williams’s opinion. The cancellation decision was rational, logical and sustainable.
6. The court declined to determine standing, deciding the claim on the assumption that the Singapore Medical Council had standing. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.