NH v General Medical Council

On an application to terminate an interim suspension imposed by a medical tribunal, the court may intervene only if the tribunal’s order was wrong, while giving appropriate weight to the tribunal’s decision. Interim suspension may be necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in the medical profession, even where no real risk to patients is alleged. Serious criminal allegations may justify suspension pending trial. The court must assess whether the consequences of suspension are proportionate to the potential damage to public confidence.

The claimant, a trainee doctor, applied under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to terminate an 18-month interim suspension imposed by an Interim Orders Tribunal. The suspension followed criminal charges alleging false imprisonment and assault involving his younger sister. The General Medical Council relied solely on the public interest in maintaining confidence in the medical profession, rather than any risk to members of the public. The central issues were whether the tribunal’s order was wrong, whether suspension was necessary or merely desirable to maintain public confidence, and whether the order was disproportionate or inadequately reasoned.

1. Application dismissed. The interim suspension order continued and was to be reviewed in the ordinary course before the end of September 2016. Costs followed the event.
2. Under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983, the court was dealing with an application, not an appeal. It could terminate the tribunal’s order only if it considered that the order was wrong. In exercising that jurisdiction, the court had to give appropriate weight to the tribunal’s decision.
3. The court did not need to resolve whether suspension had to be “necessary” or merely “desirable” for the maintenance of public confidence. On the facts, suspension was necessary. The relevant question was whether an average member of the public would be shocked or troubled, if there were a conviction, to learn that the doctor had continued practising while on bail awaiting trial.
4. The allegations were sufficiently serious to warrant interim suspension in order to maintain public confidence. They concerned alleged participation by an adult trainee doctor in a joint enterprise involving the detention and assault of a minor, together with the alleged provision and administration of emergency contraception.
5. The inconvenience, expense and delay caused to the claimant’s career were proportionate to the potential damage to public confidence. His status as a trainee meant that suspension would extend his route to qualification, rather than cause the loss of an established practice, and the criminal proceedings were expected to be resolved within months.
6. Because the matter was not an appeal, it was unnecessary to undertake a detailed analysis of the tribunal’s reasoning. In any event, the reasoning appeared adequate and showed that the tribunal understood why suspension was imposed and had considered its consequential effects.

The judgment describes the underlying decision of an Interim Orders Tribunal of the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service, which imposed the interim suspension. The High Court dismissed the application to terminate that order under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983.