Jooste v General Medical Council

An Interim Orders Panel may proceed in a practitioner’s absence where statutory notice has been properly served and reasonable efforts have been made to secure attendance. Statutory postal service cannot be displaced by a practitioner’s request for email communication. The Panel’s task is not to determine disputed facts or decide whether allegations are proved. It must assess whether an interim order is necessary for public protection, the public interest or the practitioner’s interests. Evidence raising credible concerns about practice at unregistered premises may justify interim suspension. The GMC’s jurisdiction is separate from that of another regulator and is not governed by that regulator’s decision to close part of its investigation.

Dr Jooste applied under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to terminate an interim suspension order imposed by the GMC’s Interim Orders Panel on 9 October 2009. The application had originally been brought as an appeal under section 40 of the Act. He alleged that the Panel should have adjourned because he was absent, that there was no case to answer, and that later review decisions were invalid because the original order was unlawful.

The GMC contended that the application was academic because later Panels had reviewed the matter and continued the suspension. The central issues were whether the first hearing was lawfully conducted in his absence and whether the evidence was sufficient to justify an interim suspension order.

1. Application refused. There were no grounds for terminating the interim suspension order.
2. Notice of the hearing was validly served under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the Medical Act 1983. The statutory methods included registered post and recorded delivery. Rule 40 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 made electronic service subject to those statutory requirements. The practitioner’s request for email communication could not override them. Service on 19 September 2009 gave reasonable notice of the hearing on 9 October 2009.
3. Under rule 31 of the 2004 Rules, the Panel was entitled to proceed in the practitioner’s absence. It had established service, delayed the hearing for more than two hours, and made repeated attempts to contact him.
4. The Interim Orders Panel was not required to decide disputed facts or determine whether the allegations were true. Its function was to decide whether an interim order was necessary for the protection of the public, in the public interest or in the practitioner’s own interests. This was consistent with R (on the application of Adil Ali) v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 1630 (Admin) and Sandler v General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 1029 (Admin).
5. The evidence that prescriptions written by Dr Jooste had been found at premises where no doctor or pharmacist was employed, together with the authorisation document concerning controlled drugs, raised relevant concerns about his practice and possible work from premises requiring registration under section 11 of the Care Standards Act 2000. The GMC’s jurisdiction was separate from that of the Care Quality Commission and was not displaced by the CQC’s decision to conclude its investigation concerning one premises.
6. On the documentary evidence, the Panel was entitled to find a possible impairment of fitness to practise posing a real risk to members of the public. Suspension was a necessary and proportionate interim measure. The 18-month period was subject to six-monthly review, and subsequent Panels had power to revoke or vary the order. Their later decisions were made independently and were not invalidated by the challenge to the original order.