General Medical Council (GMC) v Aliu

In proceedings concerning an interim order imposed on a doctor, the court exercises an original jurisdiction rather than conducting a statutory or judicial review. It considers all relevant evidence, including material arising after the tribunal’s decision, while giving appropriate weight to the expert tribunal’s assessment. The court must decide whether the order was wrong and whether an interim order remains necessary to protect patients or the wider public interest. The doctor’s interests must be balanced against those risks, and any conditions must be workable and enforceable. Where recent performance evidence establishes a serious and current risk, past satisfactory practice and the personal impact of suspension may carry limited weight. The public interest may justify extending an interim suspension order where the extension is proportionate and proceedings are progressing without culpable delay.

These related proceedings concerned Dr Aliu’s interim suspension from medical practice. Dr Aliu challenged the General Medical Council’s decision under section 41 A of the Medical Act 1983, seeking to lift the suspension. The GMC separately applied under section 41 A(6) for the order to be extended.

The suspension followed concerns about Dr Aliu’s clinical performance and a later performance assessment. A unanimous three-person assessment team concluded that he was not fit to practise at any level. The Interim Orders Tribunal then substituted an interim suspension order for an interim order of conditions. The central issues were whether that decision was wrong, whether workable conditions could adequately address the risk, and whether the suspension should continue until 29 June 2019.

1. Outcome. Dr Aliu’s application to lift the interim suspension was rejected. The GMC’s application was granted, and the interim suspension order was extended to 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 all relevant evidence and arguments, including fresh evidence and events occurring after the Interim Orders Tribunal’s decision.
3. The court should nevertheless give appropriate weight to the tribunal’s decision because Parliament has entrusted the expert tribunal with functions requiring medical expertise and an assessment of public expectations. The court should not substitute its own view unless the tribunal’s decision was wrong. The approach stated in General Medical Council v Dr Anyuam-Osigwe [2012] EWHC 3884 (Admin) provided the appropriate framework.
4. The relevant question was whether the evidence indicated a possible impairment of fitness to practise presenting a real risk to the public, or adversely affecting the public interest or the practitioner’s interests, and whether an interim order was necessary after balancing those interests. Proportionality was required. Conditions had to be sufficiently workable and enforceable to meet the identified risk.
5. The performance assessment was recent, unanimous and categoric. It identified substantial failures in knowledge, practical competence, communication, prescribing, resuscitation and insight, even when Dr Aliu was considered against a lower level of practice. The court was not required to resolve factual disputes or make final clinical findings. It had sufficient evidence to ground the suspension.
6. Conditions would not adequately protect the public. The identified deficiencies and Dr Aliu’s lack of insight meant that workable conditions could not be formulated without effectively amounting to suspension. The public interest therefore outweighed the impact on Dr Aliu, and the extension sought was proportionate. No culpable delay by the GMC justified lifting or shortening the order.

Not stated in the judgment.