Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council & Anor

On a reference under section 29 of the NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002, a sanction is unduly lenient only where the disciplinary tribunal could not reasonably have imposed it having regard to the relevant facts, public protection and the reputation of the profession. The specialist tribunal’s assessment attracts substantial deference, although the court must correct material errors of fact or law and intervene where the decision is wrong. Suspension is itself a serious sanction. The fact that conduct may satisfy some indicators for erasure does not mandate erasure where the tribunal reasonably concludes that it is not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

The Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals appealed under section 29 of the NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002 against a Fitness to Practise Panel’s decision to suspend Dr Vaneet Khanna for 12 months. The Panel had found sexually motivated misconduct involving two junior female colleagues and a serious abuse of professional trust. It had concluded that the misconduct was serious but not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration, and directed a review before the suspension ended. The central issue was whether that sanction was unduly lenient.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Council had not shown that the 12-month suspension was wrong because it was unduly lenient.
2. The statutory test was whether, having regard to the relevant facts and the object of disciplinary proceedings, the sanction was one which a disciplinary tribunal could reasonably have imposed. The court had to consider public safety and the reputation of the profession, consistently with Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Medical Council and Ruscillo [2005] 1 WLR 717.
3. A Fitness to Practise Panel is a specialist body with experience of the gradation of professional misconduct and the sanctions required to maintain standards. The court’s judgment is secondary, but it must correct material errors of fact or law and must not become merely deferential. The approach in Bijl [2001] UKPC 42, Evans v General Medical Council and Raschid v General Medical Council [2007] 1 WLR 1460 supported that analysis.
4. The Panel had considered the seriousness, persistence, sexual nature and abuse of trust involved. It was entitled to treat the misconduct as serious but not at the higher end of the spectrum, and to conclude that it was not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The indicators in the guidance for erasure and suspension involved matters of degree and did not dictate the result.
5. The Panel was entitled to take account of some expressions of remorse, while recognising that it could not assess insight fully because Dr Khanna had not attended. The mandatory review before the end of the suspension was a significant safeguard. Suspension was itself a serious penalty, as recognised in Bevan v General Medical Council [2005] EWHC 174.
6. The appeal was dismissed. Dr Khanna’s costs were summarily assessed at £6,462.73. The GMC was to bear its own costs.

• Fitness to Practise Panel: found serious sexually motivated misconduct and imposed a 12-month suspension, subject to review before its expiry.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the Council’s section 29 appeal.