Bhatt v General Medical Council

An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not, without more, prevent a professional disciplinary tribunal from considering substantially the same conduct. Disciplinary proceedings serve a different protective purpose, may apply a different standard of proof and may admit evidence under different rules. A stay for abuse of process remains exceptional. It may be justified where a fair hearing is impossible or where it would be unfair to require the professional to face the hearing. An appellate court should respect a specialist tribunal’s findings of primary fact, but may moderate that respect where the issue concerns matters outside the tribunal’s professional expertise, such as police investigative practice. Evidence is not inadmissible merely because a witness’s account is unsatisfactory or potentially contaminated if the tribunal is equipped to assess those defects fairly.

A Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council found that Dr Parag Bhatt had sexually motivatedly examined four female patients and directed that his name be erased from the medical register. He appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983.

Dr Bhatt had previously been acquitted by a jury at Sheffield Crown Court of seven sexual-assault charges arising from the same patients. He argued that the disciplinary proceedings were abusive, that evidence obtained during a seriously flawed police investigation should have been excluded, that the findings were unsupported, and that the evidence had been impermissibly cross-admitted. The central issues were whether the Panel’s process was fair and whether its findings were wrong or unjust.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Panel’s decision was neither wrong nor procedurally unjust. The findings of sexual motivation and the erasure sanction therefore stood.
2. An appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 is by way of rehearing, but the scope of that rehearing is elastic. The High Court must give appropriate weight to a specialist tribunal’s professional expertise and its advantage in hearing live evidence. Findings of primary fact, particularly those based on credibility, should be disturbed only where shown with reasonable certainty to be wrong. That respect may be moderated where the issue concerns police practice or other matters outside the Panel’s immediate expertise.
3. A stay for abuse of process is exceptional. It may be granted where the doctor cannot receive a fair hearing or where it would be unfair for the doctor to face the hearing. The criminal acquittal did not make the disciplinary proceedings abusive. Criminal and disciplinary proceedings have different purposes, standards of proof and evidential rules. The Panel was entitled to balance the prejudice to Dr Bhatt and his family against the GMC’s public-protection responsibilities.
4. The status of the guidance in paragraph 46 of R (Redgrave) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2003] 1 WLR 1136 did not require determination. It was obiter and non-binding. The guidance was based on an approach to the civil standard of proof which the Panel was entitled to regard as no longer representing the law.
5. The police investigator’s evidence and conduct were seriously criticised. That did not require exclusion of the complainants’ evidence. The proper question was whether the Panel could fairly assess the evidence, including possible contamination and inconsistencies. The Panel had sufficient safeguards, heard the relevant challenges and was able to evaluate the evidence. The evidence was therefore properly admitted.
6. The findings were supported by each complainant’s evidence considered individually, together with the surrounding circumstances and the inadequacy of Dr Bhatt’s explanations. The Panel was entitled to find the evidence sufficient without relying on cross-admissibility. If considered, similarities between the accounts could provide further support. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Dr Bhatt’s appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 was dismissed. The Fitness to Practise Panel’s findings and erasure direction remained in force.
• Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council: found allegations of sexually motivated examinations proved and directed erasure from the medical register.
• Sheffield Crown Court: Dr Bhatt was acquitted by jury of seven sexual-assault charges arising from the same patients.