General Medical Council v Goslakkal

For an application to extend an interim suspension of a doctor, the court assesses whether continuation is required in the public interest, including the protection of patients and the doctor, pending a fitness to practise hearing. The court does not determine whether the allegations are true. It considers the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the supporting evidence, proportionality, and whether the regulator has delayed unreasonably. A modest extension may be ordered where serious expert-supported concerns justify continued protection and the substantive hearing is expected within the proposed period.

The General Medical Council applied under section 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983 for a seven-month extension of an interim suspension imposed by its Interim Orders Panel. The allegations concerned the treatment of four paediatric patients, including a child who died during or shortly after treatment. Two independent expert reports criticised the defendant’s treatment and concluded that it fell seriously below the standard expected of a consultant paediatric neurologist.

The defendant was served but neither appeared nor was represented. The central issue was whether the statutory public-interest test justified extending the suspension until the anticipated fitness to practise hearing.

1. Statutory test. The court applied section 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983, as identified in GMC v Hiew. The question was whether the public interest, protection of patients, or protection of the doctor required the imposition, continuation or extension of interim suspension pending the Fitness to Practise Panel hearing. The court was not required to decide whether the allegations were true. (para 11)
2. Evidence and risk. The allegations involved four patients and were supported by two independent expert reports. The reports concluded that the defendant’s treatment fell seriously below the standard expected of a consultant paediatric neurologist. The concerns included inappropriate medication and investigation, failure to consider psychological and social factors, inadequate diagnosis and documentation, and an excessively aggressive reduction of medication which exposed a patient to the risk of death. (paras 2–10)
3. Proportionality and delay. Continued suspension was appropriate for the public interest and protection of patients. The General Medical Council had not delayed unreasonably. The original suspension had lasted 18 months, and the further seven-month period sought was modest and proportionate because the fitness to practise hearing was expected to conclude within that period. (para 12)
4. Order. The suspension was extended as sought until 6 April 2014. Costs were assessed at £1,797.80. (paras 12–15)