Southall v The General Medical Council

In a professional disciplinary appeal, the court may remit a panel’s decision for further reasons. Remittal is inappropriate where the fairness of the reasoning process is itself in issue and a correctly directed panel might reach a different result. If a complaint is reheard after the original findings are quashed for possible reliance on an impermissible approach, the rehearing should be before a fresh panel. Distinct charges may proceed separately and need not await the outcome of another complaint. An appeal does not raise a general principle warranting permission merely because the court identifies an exceptional case in which fairness requires reasons on factual matters, as discussed in Gupta v General Medical Council [2002] 1 WLR 1691.

Dr David Southall appealed from disciplinary proceedings before the General Medical Council and the decision of the High Court, Administrative Court, before Blake J. The appeal concerned complaints by Mrs M and separate complaints identified as the Dinwiddie and SC files. Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 20 April 2010, the parties made submissions on the appropriate orders, including whether the findings concerning Mrs M should be remitted for further reasons, reheard, or quashed, and whether any rehearing should be before the same panel. The court also considered the sanctions on the separate complaints, permission to appeal, and costs.

Disposition. The appeal was substantially successful. The findings and sanction concerning Mrs M were quashed. The matter was remitted to the GMC to decide whether, in light of all the circumstances and the court’s observations, the complaint should be pursued before a fresh panel.

1. The court had jurisdiction, in an appropriate case, to remit a disciplinary decision to the panel for further reasons. That course was not appropriate here. The court had rejected the argument that the panel’s findings were perverse, but the process of reasoning was itself material. The fact that there was evidence capable of supporting the decision did not establish that the panel would necessarily reach the same result if it approached the matter correctly.
2. The proposed questions about whether the panel had been influenced by its extreme concern about Dr Southall’s conduct, or by the GMC’s alleged characterisation of a shared mindset, could not satisfactorily cure the problem. A negative answer would conflict with the panel’s sanction remarks, while an affirmative answer would reveal reasoning unsupported by evidence.
3. The wider public concern about investigating alleged child abuse did not arise under the narrowly framed charge, which concerned whether Dr Southall had expressly accused Mrs M of drugging and murdering M1. The public interest in professional regulation remained primarily for the GMC. If the complaint were reheard, fresh minds were required and the same panel should not be used.
4. The Dinwiddie and SC complaints were distinct. There was no need to await the outcome of the Mrs M complaint. The original panel could fairly determine the remaining sanction issues, and those matters were remitted to it for a sanction hearing.
5. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. The case identified only an exceptional circumstance in which fairness required reasons even on factual matters, applying Gupta v General Medical Council [2002] 1 WLR 1691. The GMC was ordered to pay 60 per cent of Dr Southall’s Court of Appeal costs, while the Administrative Court costs order was varied so that Dr Southall paid 75 per cent of the GMC’s costs.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Blake J determined challenges to the GMC panel decisions. The citation of that decision is not stated in the judgment.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was substantially successful. The findings concerning Mrs M were quashed and remitted to the GMC for a decision on whether to pursue a rehearing before a fresh panel. The Dinwiddie and SC complaints were remitted to the original panel for sanction.