General Medical Council v Imran

When extending an interim order imposing conditions under section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the court applies the same test as the Interim Orders Panel. The question is whether the conditions remain necessary and proportionate in the interests of patients, the doctor or the general public, by reference to the allegations made. The court must not determine those allegations, which are for the Fitness to Practise Panel. The duration of an extension may exceed the expected hearing date where the conditions have limited practical effect and a possible adjournment would cause delay and require a further application. The interim order falls away when replaced by the Fitness to Practise Panel’s order.

The General Medical Council applied under sections 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983 for a further two-month extension of interim conditions imposed on the defendant by an Interim Orders Panel. The defendant, who was practising in Pakistan, neither appeared nor was represented. His Fitness to Practise Panel hearing was ongoing and concerned alleged employment, instructional and inappropriate patient-contact misconduct. The central issues were whether the conditions remained appropriate and whether the requested extension until 19 November 2013 was proportionate.

1. The application was granted. The interim order of conditions was extended from 20 September to 19 November 2013.
2. The court applied the test used by the Interim Orders Panel. Under the principles identified in GMC v Hiew, the court had to assess whether suspension or conditions were necessary and proportionate in the interests of patients, the doctor or the general public, by reference to the allegations made. It was not the court’s function to resolve those allegations, which were matters for the Fitness to Practise Panel.
3. The conditions were reasonable and proportionate to the allegations. They required notification of applications for medical employment outside the United Kingdom, restricted contact with patients outside hospital settings without supervisory authorisation, and confined NHS practice to supervised work.
4. The requested period was longer than the expected remaining hearing time, but was justified. The order imposed conditions rather than suspension, the conditions had limited practical effect, and there was a real possibility that the Fitness to Practise Panel would need to adjourn part-heard. Reconstituting the panel could cause delay, and a further application would create expense and practical difficulty, particularly because the defendant was living and working in Pakistan.
5. If the Fitness to Practise Panel concluded before 20 September with no order, conditions or a lesser sanction, the interim order would fall away and be replaced by the panel’s order. The GMC’s costs were assessed at £1,880.40.