Razoq, R (On the Application Of) v General Medical Council

Judicial review is not academic solely because a regulatory suspension has ended; a declaration may remain appropriate where a public body has acted unlawfully or unfairly. A claim must nevertheless be brought promptly and, under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 54.5, no later than three months after the grounds first arose. A statutory right of appeal may make judicial review inappropriate. Courts are slow to interfere with procedural decisions, such as adjournments, entrusted to a specialist tribunal. Judicial review cannot indirectly challenge a High Court order by attacking the application that led to it. Criminal proceedings, statutory appeals and continuing High Court oversight may explain regulatory delay and defeat an undue-delay challenge.

Razoq, R (On the Application Of) v General Medical Council concerned a renewed application for permission to appeal after His Honour Judge Rogers, sitting as a High Court judge in the Administrative Court, refused permission for judicial review on 25 October 2013. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Lewison LJ.

The applicant challenged eight General Medical Council decisions made between April 2009 and May 2013, including registration conditions, continuation and extension of interim suspension, the adjournment of a fitness-to-practise hearing, and an application to the High Court for a further extension. He also sought an extension of time and argued that the overall delay was unlawful. The central issues were timeliness, alternative statutory appeals, the lawfulness of the adjournment, the challenge to the High Court order, and undue delay.

The renewed application for permission to appeal and the application for an extension of time were dismissed.

1. The challenges to the earlier regulatory decisions were substantially out of time. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 54.5, judicial-review proceedings must be brought promptly and in any event within three months after the grounds first arose. Treating the decisions as part of a series did not justify the delay. The grounds were also meritless.
2. The General Medical Council was entitled to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings arising from the allegations of fraud. It could not properly anticipate the result or reach a conclusion that might conflict with the jury’s findings. The High Court application to extend the interim suspension had also been granted, and permission to appeal had been refused.
3. The existence of a statutory right of appeal against a fitness-to-practise panel decision under section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 was a further reason why judicial review was inappropriate. The panel’s decision to hold the hearing in public was lawful. The press formed part of the public and could not be excluded while the hearing remained public.
4. The adjournment was a procedural decision within the panel’s discretion. The panel had run out of time because the applicant’s evidence and applications had not been completed. The courts should be reluctant to interfere with such decisions absent unlawfulness or impropriety. The delay before reconvening the same experienced panel was regrettable but legally unobjectionable.
5. The Court of Appeal could not judicially review a High Court decision. Challenging the GMC’s application would impermissibly attack the High Court order indirectly. The order had also been consented to and was subject to appeal.
6. The overall delay was materially explained by the criminal proceedings, the time required after release to constitute the panel and allow preparation, the adjournment, statutory appeal rights and continuing High Court oversight. There was therefore no arguable basis for judicial review on undue delay.

• High Court (Administrative Court): His Honour Judge Rogers refused permission for judicial review on 25 October 2013.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lewison LJ refused permission on the papers. Sir David Keene dismissed the renewed application and the application for an extension of time: [2015] EWCA Civ 972.