General Medical Council v Walton

An appeal under Medical Act 1983, section 40A, is governed by the ordinary appellate test. The High Court may intervene where a tribunal has construed allegations incorrectly or failed to address a material issue. In regulatory appeals, particular caution is required before disturbing factual or evaluative findings, especially findings involving specialist expertise. A case should be remitted where further findings might affect impairment or sanction, or might itself bear on public protection. Sanctions guidance is an authoritative steer, but it is not prescriptive. A tribunal may depart from it where it gives adequate case-specific reasons.

The General Medical Council appealed under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal determination which found several allegations against Professor Walton proved, found current impairment, and imposed six months’ suspension.

The appeal alleged that the Tribunal had wrongly construed allegations 3 and 4 as confined to failures before Professor Walton began employment at the University of Warwick, and had failed to apply the GMC Sanctions Guidance when deciding sanction. The central issues were the proper scope of the allegations, the appellate court’s power to remit, and whether the Tribunal had adequately considered erasure.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The Tribunal had construed allegation 3 incorrectly. The reference to work described in allegation 1 meant the paid private work undertaken while Professor Walton was employed by the University, rather than his employment itself or only events before employment began. The Tribunal should therefore have considered whether a conflict of interest should have been declared after employment commenced.

2. The same error affected allegation 4. The Tribunal should have considered whether the admitted failure to make an application was dishonest by reason of the facts in allegation 2(a). The effect of the Tribunal’s finding concerning knowledge of the employment terms remained a matter for the Tribunal on remittal.

3. Under section 40A, the appeal is an appeal governed by CPR Part 52. The court may correct material errors of fact or law, but should show considerable restraint when reviewing primary factual findings and specialist evaluative decisions. The approach in General Medical Council v Jagjivan [2017] EWHC 1247 (Admin) was applicable. The court was not substituting its own findings on dishonesty, impairment or sanction.

4. Remittal was appropriate because further findings on allegations 3 and 4 might affect sanction and might independently bear on the protection of the public. It was unnecessary to show that further findings would change the sanction.

5. The challenge to sanction failed on the Tribunal’s existing findings. The Tribunal had considered the substance of paragraph 109 of the Sanctions Guidance, including the seriousness and repetition of the dishonesty, the denial of dishonesty, lack of remediation, and whether the misconduct was persistent or fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The Guidance was an authoritative steer, not a mandatory prescription.

6. The factual findings on allegations 3(a), 3(b) and 4, and the determinations on impairment and sanction, were to be quashed and those matters remitted to the MPT for further disposal in accordance with the judgment.

• Medical Practitioners Tribunal: determined the facts, impairment and sanction on 17 and 18 June 2019; imposed six months’ suspension.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal on Ground 1, dismissed it on Ground 2, and ordered quashing and remittal of the specified issues.