Raschid v General Medical Council

An appellate court reviewing a professional disciplinary sanction must consider all material before it, including mitigation and the reasons given by the disciplinary tribunal. It must nevertheless respect the tribunal’s specialist judgment about the seriousness of misconduct and the appropriate sanction. A sanction may be reduced where its length is excessive or its conditions are unnecessary, even though the decision to impose some sanction was reasonably open to the tribunal. The effect of prior loss of employment and inability to practise may be relevant mitigation where erasure is not required. A finding of serious professional misconduct does not necessarily require suspension.

Dr Raschid appealed against a Fitness to Practise Panel’s finding of serious professional misconduct and its sanction. The misconduct concerned inappropriate personal remarks and physical contact with a patient, subsequent telephone calls, and further contact contrary to an instruction from the employing trust. The Panel imposed a 12-month suspension and required a review hearing before he could resume practice.

The appeal concerned whether the finding was sustainable and whether the sanction, including its duration and review requirement, was excessive in light of the circumstances, the absence of sexual motivation, the appellant’s previous record, his medical fitness, and his inability to practise since the complaint.

1. The appeal against the finding of serious professional misconduct was dismissed. The admitted conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional, and its damaging effect on a vulnerable psychiatric patient justified the finding. The absence of sexual motivation and the isolated nature of the incident did not prevent the conduct from amounting to serious professional misconduct.

2. The Panel had properly considered the Indicative Sanctions Guidance and the public interest, including protection of patients and public confidence in the profession. A finding of serious professional misconduct may justify a reprimand or no further sanction; it does not necessarily require suspension.

3. The court’s task on appeal was not simply to substitute its own view. It had to consider the whole of the material and the Panel’s reasons, while allowing appropriate weight to the Panel’s expertise in determining seriousness and sanction. The court could intervene where the sanction was clearly wrong or the Panel was not reasonably entitled to impose it.

4. The period of 12 months was excessive. The Panel had not adequately explained why that period was needed to address the identified deficiency, particularly when there was no evidence of a psychiatric disorder, no prior disciplinary history, and no indication that similar conduct was likely to recur. The appellant’s prolonged inability to obtain employment and practise was relevant mitigation.

5. Suspension itself was not unreasonable, because it conveyed the seriousness of the misconduct and protected public confidence. The court therefore substituted a one-month suspension, beginning on the date of judgment, and removed the requirement for a review hearing. There was no order as to costs.

• Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council: found serious professional misconduct and imposed a 12-month suspension with a review hearing.
• High Court (Administrative Court): upheld the finding, reduced the suspension to one month, removed the review requirement, and made no order as to costs.