Aliu v General Medical Council (GMC)

In proceedings concerning an interim order imposed on a regulated professional, the Administrative Court exercises an original jurisdiction rather than a review jurisdiction. It considers all relevant evidence, including material arising after the tribunal’s decision, while giving appropriate weight to the expert tribunal’s assessment. An interim order is justified where current evidence indicates a real risk to the public or public interest and the order is necessary and proportionate after balancing the professional’s interests. Conditions must be workable and enforceable. Where recent performance evidence establishes a strong continuing public-interest case and supervision cannot adequately manage the risk, suspension may be maintained and extended.

Dr Aliu challenged the General Medical Council’s interim suspension order under section 41 A of the Medical Act 1983. In related proceedings, the GMC sought an extension of that order under section 41 A(6). The challenge initially concerned an interim order of conditions, later replaced by suspension following a performance assessment which concluded that Dr Aliu was not fit to practise.

The central issues were whether the Interim Orders Tribunal had been wrong to impose suspension, whether the court could take account of subsequent evidence, and whether continued suspension to 29 June 2019 was necessary and proportionate.

1. The court dismissed Dr Aliu’s application to lift the interim suspension order and granted the GMC’s application to extend it until 29 June 2019.
2. Under section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983, the court exercises an original jurisdiction. It is not confined to statutory or judicial review. It must consider the relevant evidence and arguments, including material not before the Interim Orders Tribunal and developments since that tribunal’s decision. The court nevertheless gives appropriate weight to the tribunal because Parliament has entrusted it with expert statutory functions.
3. The approach stated in General Medical Council v Dr Anyuam-Osigwe [2012] EWHC 3884 (Admin) was applied. The question was whether an interim order was necessary for public protection or otherwise in the public interest, having regard to the risk, the doctor’s interests, proportionality, and whether any conditions would be workable and enforceable.
4. The court did not determine disputed facts or make final clinical findings. It asked whether the available evidence was sufficient to ground interim suspension. The unanimous performance assessment, including very poor test and practical performance, provided a strong and current evidential basis. Dr Aliu had not undermined that evidence sufficiently to justify giving it little weight.
5. The public interest outweighed Dr Aliu’s interests. His previous satisfactory practice could not materially reduce the weight of the recent assessment. Conditions or supervision would not adequately address the identified risk, and the court could not impose conditions as an alternative to suspension in the circumstances. There had been no culpable delay by the GMC, and the reduced extension sought to June 2019 was proportionate.