General Medical Council v Kumar

When considering whether to extend an interim suspension of a doctor, the court should not determine the truth of outstanding allegations. It should assess their nature and seriousness and balance the protection of the public against the doctor’s interests. An extension may be justified where serious allegations remain unresolved, the doctor would not be seriously prejudiced, and further time is reasonably required for regulatory proceedings. The court may grant a longer extension than that initially sought where this promotes proper case management and avoids a further application.

The General Medical Council applied to extend an interim order suspending Dr Veeresh Kumar from practice. The order had originally been made for 18 months and was due to expire on 20 July 2012.

The allegations concerned two alleged sexual assaults said to have occurred while Dr Kumar was a trainee psychiatrist. Criminal proceedings had not proceeded after he left the United Kingdom for India and failed to attend trial. The GMC then commenced its own investigation and required further time to trace the alleged victims, contact Dr Kumar and arrange a Fitness to Practise Panel hearing. The defendant was absent, but the court was satisfied that the claim and evidence had been validly served by email. The central issue was whether the interim suspension should be extended.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension was extended for a further nine months, taking its expiry date to 19 April 2013.

2. In determining whether an interim order should continue, the court must not make factual findings about the allegations. It must consider their nature and seriousness, protect the public, and balance that need against the interests of the defendant.

3. The allegations were serious and it was inappropriate for the defendant to practise while they remained outstanding. The evidence indicated that a further suspension would not seriously prejudice him because he appeared neither willing nor able to practise medicine in the United Kingdom.

4. The GMC had acted with reasonable promptness after the criminal authorities decided to take no further positive steps. A further period was required to trace the alleged victims, obtain their assistance, communicate with the defendant and procure a Fitness to Practise Panel hearing. Although six months had been requested, nine months was appropriate to support proper case management and reduce the need for an earlier further application.

5. The defendant was ordered to pay the GMC’s costs, summarily assessed at £2,064.50. The court considered the work, rates and disbursements reasonable and proportionate.

This was a first-instance application. The judgment records an earlier order permitting service of the claim and supporting evidence by email, after which the court proceeded in the defendant’s absence.