Ujam v General Medical Council

On an appeal from a professional disciplinary panel, the High Court asks whether the determination was wrong. It should exercise care before disturbing factual findings based on the panel’s assessment of witnesses and should ordinarily respect the panel’s professional judgment about appropriate standards and sanctions. Conduct which is sexually motivated, inappropriate and harassing towards professional colleagues may amount to serious professional misconduct and bring the profession into disrepute, even without clinical incompetence or physical assault. A practitioner’s insight into the effect of his conduct may be relevant both to impairment of fitness to practise and to sanction. An isolated non-sexual incident may not itself establish impairment, but may contribute to an overall pattern of overbearing or thoughtless conduct.

Dr Chukwugozie Ujam appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Fitness to Practise Panel direction dated 20 December 2010 suspending him from the Medical Register for six months. The Panel had found proved allegations involving misleading information about a criminal-record certificate, inappropriate conduct towards a supervisor, and sexually motivated and inappropriate conduct towards two doctors and a trainee nurse.

The appeal challenged the characterisation of the conduct as serious misconduct, the finding that it impaired fitness to practise, and, alternatively, the suspension. The judgment supplied records the court’s conclusions on the misconduct findings and states that further submissions would be considered before deciding whether fitness to practise remained impaired and whether the sanction was wrong.

1. The appeal was governed by section 40 of the Medical Act 1983. Under CPR 52.11(3), the issue was whether the Panel’s determination was wrong. Although the appeal was by way of rehearing, the court had not seen or heard the witnesses. It therefore had to exercise care before treating factual conclusions as wrong and should ordinarily accord respect to the Panel’s professional judgment concerning professional standards and the seriousness of misconduct.

2. The court considered the approach summarised in Cheatle v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin), the sanction principles summarised in Fatnani and Raschid v General Medical Council [2007] EWCA (Civ) 46, and the observations in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 and Ghosh v GMC [2001] 1 WLR 1915. A disciplinary panel is concerned primarily with protection of the public and the reputation and standards of the profession, rather than punishment or personal mitigation.

3. The Panel was entitled to find that the conduct towards Dr Pennington, Dr Priestman and Nurse Hudson was inappropriate, sexually motivated, unprofessional and serious. Persistent sexual overtures, probing of colleagues’ private lives, conduct causing anxiety or distraction during clinical work, and continuing behaviour after an internal warning could properly be viewed as a pattern falling seriously short of the standards expected of a registered medical practitioner. The absence of clinical incompetence, physical assault or lasting persistence did not make the findings wrong.

4. The Panel was also entitled to take account of the claimant’s limited insight into the effect of his behaviour. Insight could legitimately bear on impairment of fitness to practise and, if necessary, sanction. The telephone incident, considered alone, would be difficult to regard as sufficient to establish impairment or require suspension, but it could properly contribute to an overall pattern of overbearing and thoughtless conduct towards colleagues.

5. The court concluded that there was no basis for ruling that the Panel’s assessment of the misconduct as serious and bringing the profession into disrepute was wrong. The supplied judgment does not record the subsequent decision on continuing impairment or the sanction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): heard an appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Fitness to Practise Panel direction dated 20 December 2010. The court upheld the Panel’s misconduct assessment as not shown to be wrong. The supplied judgment records that further submissions were required on continuing impairment and sanction.