General Medical Council v Kealoha

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension of a doctor’s registration, the court applies the same criteria as the regulatory body. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner. The regulatory body bears the burden of establishing on the balance of probabilities that an extension is justified. An extension is appropriate where serious allegations indicate a continuing risk to the public, the proceedings are being advanced with reasonable expedition, a hearing is imminent, and the practitioner faces limited prejudice.

The General Medical Council applied under section 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983 to extend an Interim Orders Panel’s interim suspension of Dr Rick Kealoha’s registration. The suspension was due to expire on 12 July 2012.

The application arose from concerns about Dr Kealoha’s basic clinical skills and the resulting risk to patients. The matter had been referred to a Fitness to Practise Panel, with a hearing fixed for November 2012. The issue was whether the statutory criteria justified extending the interim suspension.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended from 12 July 2012 to 12 January 2013 under section 41A of the Medical Act 1983.
2. The court applied the criteria identified in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The relevant matters were the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case had not concluded, and the prejudice to the practitioner if suspension continued.
3. The burden lay on the GMC to establish on the balance of probabilities that those criteria were met and that an extension should be granted.
4. The allegations concerned an alleged lack of basic clinical skills, creating a serious potential risk to the public if Dr Kealoha practised. The case had been referred to a Fitness to Practise Panel and the hearing was expected to conclude within the proposed extension. The GMC was proceeding with reasonable expedition.
5. Prejudice to Dr Kealoha was limited because he had indicated that he did not intend to practise again in the United Kingdom.