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

In an appeal concerning professional disciplinary proceedings, an extension of time may be granted where the appeal is reasonably arguable and the interests of justice favour examination of alleged procedural unfairness. The court may preserve the ability of the appeal judge to consider underlying material where that may be necessary to resolve the dispute effectively. Procedural directions may include permission to obtain documents by witness summons where relevant bodies may possess them.

Dr Khazne sought to appeal a January 2006 decision of the General Medical Council. Earlier GMC decisions had suspended him after he failed to submit to a directed assessment of his competence to practise. He alleged that the original basis for requiring assessment was flawed, that the GMC had conflated that issue with his failure to undergo assessment, and that the review procedure was unfair because underlying complaint documents had not been obtained.

The application concerned extension of time for service of the notice of appeal and directions for the proposed appeal. The court also considered whether the appeal was arguable and how the underlying documents should be obtained.

1. Extension of time. Time for service of the amended notice of appeal was extended up to the date on which it had been served. Although the claimant’s explanation for delay was criticised, he was a litigant in person, had sought pro bono advice, and there was no live issue concerning public protection because he remained suspended. The interests of justice therefore favoured allowing the alleged procedural errors to be addressed.
2. Arguable appeal. The proposed grounds were not hopeless. They included whether the GMC should have adjourned its review to obtain and consider underlying complaint documents, and whether it had incorrectly conflated failure to undergo a new assessment with the contention that the basis for requiring assessment was flawed. The court expressed no view that the appeal would succeed.
3. Scope of the appeal. The appeal judge was to retain the ability, if appropriate, to examine the underlying regulatory dispute and determine the matter rather than remitting it solely on procedural grounds. That approach might assist the GMC’s future annual reviews.
4. Documents and directions. The GMC was permitted to seek the relevant documents from the Primary Care Trust and the NCAA, including by witness summons against an appropriate officer if necessary. The original notice of appeal was directed to be provided to the GMC. The matter was to be listed with a one-day estimate, with liberty to apply concerning production of the documents.

The judgment concerns an appeal brought against a January 2006 decision of the General Medical Council. The judgment does not give a citation for that decision. Earlier GMC decisions in January 2005 and July 2004 were also described, but no citations were provided.