Gopalakrishnan, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council

An appeal from a fitness to practise determination is a rehearing on the material before the court, but appellate restraint remains appropriate where the tribunal saw and heard the witnesses. Findings of primary fact should be disturbed only where they are plainly wrong or the evidence was misread with reasonable certainty. In straightforward credibility disputes, a panel need not provide elaborate reasons. In an exceptional or complex case, it must address the salient issues sufficiently to explain why the losing party lost. A panel may accept part of a witness’s evidence and reject another part, provided it considers the allegations separately and focuses on the core issues. Apparent bias is assessed by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

The claimant appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Fitness to Practise Panel determination finding misconduct based on non-consensual touching of two colleagues and imposing four months’ suspension. The appeal challenged the factual findings on inadequate reasoning, perversity and apparent bias. The claimant relied on inconsistencies in the complainants’ accounts, documentary timing records, possible collusion and the Panel’s conduct during the hearing. The central questions were whether the Panel had given adequate reasons, whether its factual conclusions were perverse, and whether a fair-minded and informed observer would perceive a real possibility of bias.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court treated the appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 as a rehearing without hearing the evidence again. It had to consider the material for itself, while according appropriate deference to the Panel’s findings based on observing and hearing witnesses.
2. The Panel was entitled to accept some parts of a witness’s evidence and reject others. Inconsistencies about dates or detail did not require wholesale rejection where the core allegations were sufficiently supported. The Panel had considered the allegations separately, adopted a cautious approach to delayed reporting and possible contamination, and explained why it preferred the complainants’ evidence on the findings made.
3. The reasoning challenge failed. In a straightforward conflict of factual evidence, findings of fact and an indication of which account was preferred may adequately explain the result. The case did not reach the exceptional level requiring extensive treatment of every inconsistency or every matter raised in cross-examination. The Panel had nevertheless addressed the material issues, including the documentary records, prior accounts, collusion and contamination, and the appellant’s evidence.
4. The perversity challenge also failed. Although the evidence was extensive, the essential issue was credibility rather than legal complexity. The case did not approach the exceptional circumstances identified in Southall v General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 407 or Yaacoub v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 2779 (Admin). The Panel’s conclusions were open to it.
5. There was no apparent bias. The Panel’s questions, consideration of possible charge amendments, length of deliberation and composition did not establish a real possibility of bias for the purposes of Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357.

The four-month suspension remained undisturbed.

The judgment describes an appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 from the Fitness to Practise Panel’s determination of 29 September 2015. The Panel had found misconduct, impairment of fitness to practise and imposed a four-month suspension. The High Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds.