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

When extending an interim suspension of a medical practitioner’s registration, the court must decide whether continuation is fair, reasonable and proportionate. It must balance the public interest in protection against the practitioner’s interest in working and right to a fair trial. The court should select a period that protects the public while allowing the regulatory process to proceed efficiently. A longer period is not necessarily preferable if it reduces procedural focus or does not materially reduce the risk of delay.

The General Medical Council applied under section 41A(6) of the Medical Act 1983 to extend Dr George’s suspension. His registration had originally been suspended for 18 months in 2003 and had subsequently been extended by earlier orders. The substantive fitness to practise proceedings had been delayed by assessment difficulties, adjournment applications and other procedural problems, with a hearing listed for May and June 2006.

Dr George accepted that a further extension was required but proposed three months. The GMC sought twelve months. The central issue was the appropriate duration of the further suspension.

1. Extension granted. The court extended Dr George’s suspension for four months, until July 2006, and ordered him to pay the GMC’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
2. In exercising the statutory discretion, the court applied the test that continuation of the suspension must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. The court had to balance the need to protect the public interest against Dr George’s interest in working and his right to a fair trial.
3. The court rejected both the proposed three-month period and the GMC’s request for twelve months. Three months would barely cover the listed fitness to practise hearing. Twelve months would not necessarily reduce the risk of further delay and might remove the concentration created by a shorter deadline. Four months provided a buffer for completion of the hearing and delivery of the decision.
4. The Fitness to Practise Panel could proceed in Dr George’s absence and could impose a sanction if appropriate. It could take account of the history of adjournment and postponement requests, the refusal to undergo medical examination at the GMC’s request, and the limited medical evidence provided. It could also consider arrangements enabling Dr George to participate without attending in person.
5. The GMC was entitled to its costs because Dr George had objected to any extension and had not offered consent to a shorter period until the hearing. The application had therefore required full preparation and had succeeded.

The judgment records earlier extensions of the suspension by Sullivan J and Munby J in the same proceedings. No appeal from those decisions is stated.