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

When extending an interim suspension of a medical practitioner’s registration, the court must balance two paramount considerations. Suspension should last no longer than necessary, while protection of the public must remain at the forefront of the decision. The appropriate period depends on the time reasonably required to resolve the regulatory proceedings and protect patients. A lengthy extension is unjustified where the outstanding fitness-to-practise hearing is overwhelmingly likely to conclude the matter within a substantially shorter period.

The General Medical Council applied under section 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983 to extend an interim order suspending the registration of a medical practitioner. The suspension had been in place since March 2003 and was due to expire on 1 April 2007. The Council sought a further 12 months, citing uncertainty about the conclusion of the forthcoming fitness-to-practise hearing and the absence of prejudice to the practitioner, who was medically unfit to work. The practitioner offered to accept a three-month extension to enable the hearing to conclude.

1. Principles governing extension. In deciding whether to extend an interim suspension, the court must ensure that suspension lasts no longer than necessary. Protection of the public must remain at the forefront of the court’s consideration.
2. Assessment of the likely proceedings. The forthcoming five-day fitness-to-practise hearing was overwhelmingly likely to resolve the matter. The realistic outcomes identified were a finding that the practitioner’s fitness to practise was impaired or a finding of failure to comply with reasonable assessment requirements. In either event, a further lengthy interim suspension would become irrelevant. A further adjournment to obtain medical evidence was highly unlikely in light of the history.
3. Period ordered. The reason advanced for the extension was to allow the practitioner’s health to be assessed and the relisted hearing to take place. Three months was sufficient and appropriate for those purposes. A further year was neither necessary nor appropriate.
4. The interim suspension was extended for three months from 2 April 2007. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £4,982.59.