General Medical Council v Adu

An interim order of suspension may be extended where the evidence establishes a clear and apparent case that continuation is required in the public interest. Relevant considerations include protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession, and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The court may abridge the time for service where the respondent has been properly served and has shown little or no engagement with the proceedings. A determination that serious fitness-to-practise allegations have been proved, together with an imminent substantive hearing, may support the extension.

The General Medical Council applied under section 41 A(6)(vii) of the Medical Act 1983 to extend an interim order suspending Dr Coffey Adu for four months. The order had originally been imposed on 16 April 2012 and maintained on three statutory reviews. The Fitness to Practise Panel had subsequently found the majority of the allegations proved, and a fitness-to-practise hearing was listed for 16 to 19 December 2013. Dr Adu had been served with the proceedings but did not attend or obtain representation.

The issues were whether service should be abridged and whether the interim suspension should be extended in the public interest.

1. The application was granted. The interim order of suspension was extended for four months, expiring on 14 February 2014, and costs of £1,609 were allowed.

2. The court had power under section 41 A(6)(vii) of the Medical Act 1983 to extend the interim suspension. The governing public-interest considerations included the protection of patients, maintaining public confidence in the medical profession, and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

3. The respondent had been served on 27 September 2013. In light of the certificate of service and his repeated failure to engage with letters, emails and the proceedings, the court abridged the time for service of grounds in response.

4. The case was a clear and apparent case for continuation of the suspension. The allegations concerned serious matters going to the heart of fitness to practise. The Fitness to Practise Panel had already found the majority of those allegations proved. The substantive fitness-to-practise hearing was imminent, and a four-month extension provided appropriate headroom until that hearing.

5. Dr Adu had not previously challenged the interim order and had not objected to its continuation at an earlier review. He neither appeared nor was represented at the application. The court therefore extended the order in the public interest and made the associated costs order.