General Medical Council, R (on the application of) v Saadien-Raad

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order beyond its 18-month maximum, the court should assess the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner. The court must consider the circumstances as a whole and whether the statutory requirements are satisfied. A substantial public interest in continued suspension, combined with responsible progress of the proceedings and limited prejudice to the practitioner, may justify a 12-month extension.

The General Medical Council applied for a further 12-month extension of an interim order suspending Dr Saadien-Raad from the Register. The order had been imposed by the Interim Orders Panel on 2 November 2007 and was due to expire on 1 May 2009. The Fitness to Practise Panel was expected to begin considering the case in September 2009.

The application concerned whether the statutory conditions for extending the order were satisfied and what weight should be given to the serious allegations, the progress of the proceedings, the public interest and prejudice to the practitioner.

1. The application was granted. The interim order of suspension was extended for 12 months from and including 1 May 2009.
2. In considering an extension beyond the 18-month maximum, the court applied the factors identified in General Medical Council v Dr Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369: the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case had not concluded, and prejudice to the defendant.
3. The allegations were wide-ranging and extremely serious, involving repeated dishonesty, attempts to pervert the course of justice, fraud relating to the defendant’s CV and poor professional performance. There remained an overwhelming public interest in continued suspension.
4. The GMC had acted reasonably and expeditiously. The defendant lived in South Africa, so continuation of the suspension had little practical impact and did not prevent him practising there. The proposed extension therefore caused no significant prejudice.
5. The court was satisfied that the circumstances justified the requested extension and that the requirements of Medical Act 1983, section 41 A(6) and (7), were fully satisfied.
6. The defendant’s refusal to consent to the extension was unreasonable in the circumstances. The GMC was awarded summarily assessed costs of £2,630.50, including VAT.

The judgment records that the Interim Orders Panel imposed the suspension on 2 November 2007 and reconsidered the matter in March 2009. The High Court then granted the GMC’s application for extension.