Uruakpa v General Medical Council

An appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 may involve review or rehearing, but the court should not interfere with a Fitness to Practise Panel’s decision unless it is wrong, unjust, or affected by serious procedural irregularity. Appropriate deference is owed to clinical evaluations.

A panel may rely on freely made admissions, take refusal to undergo professional assessment into account, and adjourn sanction proceedings to obtain further reports. Suspension may be proportionate where conditions have failed to secure an assessment necessary to protect the public.

Dr Uruakpa appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Fitness to Practise Panel’s direction suspending his registration for 12 months. The proceedings followed allegations concerning his clinical work, his refusal to complete a professional performance assessment, and admissions made during the disciplinary hearing.

He challenged the fairness and conduct of the proceedings, the validity of his admissions, the Panel’s refusal to hear a renewed abuse-of-process application, its power to obtain an assessment after finding impairment, and the proportionality of suspension.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was governed by section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 and Part 52.11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The court could review or rehear the matter, but intervention required proof that the Panel’s decision or sanction was wrong, unjust, or affected by serious procedural irregularity. Deference was appropriate in relation to clinical evaluations.
2. The applicable framework was the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004. The GMC was entitled to request a professional performance assessment and, following refusal, to refer the case to a Panel. That course was justified and proportionate.
3. The appellant’s admissions were made voluntarily. Pressure and self-representation did not deprive them of significance. The Panel was entitled to rely on them and the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
4. The Panel was entitled to refuse a renewed abuse-of-process application after two earlier applications had been withdrawn.
5. The Panel could take failure to complete the assessment into account when deciding impairment. It could also adjourn before sanction to obtain further information or reports, including a professional performance assessment.
6. Suspension was appropriate because conditions had failed to secure the assessment needed to protect the public. The appeal therefore failed.
7. The respondent was awarded costs of £22,500, reflecting reductions including the respondent’s earlier delay.

The judgment records an appeal to the High Court under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 from a Fitness to Practise Panel’s 12-month suspension direction.