DR HAKEEM OLUKOREDE LATEEF v GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

An appellate court considering a professional disciplinary appeal should interfere with factual or evaluative findings only where the decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. A tribunal may assess evidence given through a difficult video link or by a witness whose first language is not English, provided it makes appropriate allowances and the process remains fair. Fresh evidence should be admitted only where it could influence the outcome and appears credible. Dishonesty, particularly where persistent or accompanied by a sustained lack of insight and a cover-up, may justify erasure where suspension would not maintain public confidence or uphold professional standards.

Dr Lateef appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision ordering his erasure from the medical register. The Tribunal found that he knowingly submitted a fabricated curriculum vitae and personal overview when seeking financial-control employment during a period of suspension, and that this amounted to dishonesty, serious misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise.

The appeal raised alleged procedural unfairness concerning the evidence of a witness giving evidence from Nigeria by video link, challenges to the Tribunal’s assessment of credibility and dishonesty, proposed fresh evidence, the admissibility of evidence from abroad, and the proportionality of erasure.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 and CPR 52.21(3), the Court’s task was not to retry the facts. There was no basis for concluding that the Tribunal’s factual findings or evaluative judgments were wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The Tribunal had not acted unfairly in considering Mr Olayinka’s evidence through a difficult video link. It knew that English was not his first language, made appropriate allowances, adjourned so that he could read and confirm his written statement, and allowed cross-examination and re-examination. Dr Lateef’s representatives had arranged the evidence and had not requested an interpreter, an adjournment or a better link.
3. The proposed fresh evidence was refused. It was introduced very late, was incapable of affecting the outcome and was not apparently credible. It represented an attempt to improve evidence already given live and under cross-examination. The familiar requirements identified in GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 were not met.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to reject the accounts of Dr Lateef and Mr Olayinka because of inconsistencies, lack of detail and the implausibility of the explanation that Dr Lateef’s late wife had sent the emails. Its finding that Dr Lateef knowingly used the false CV supported the finding of dishonesty. The absence of evidence from Mr A did not make the proceedings unfair because the case turned on Dr Lateef’s use of the CV, not on Mr A’s account.
5. The findings of misconduct, impairment and sanction were unassailable. The Tribunal was entitled to treat the dishonesty, the previous dishonest conduct, the denial of responsibility and the lack of meaningful insight as relevant to public confidence and professional standards. Erasure was appropriate and proportionate.
6. The late argument concerning permission for evidence from Nigeria could not succeed. Any relevant procedure was for the party arranging the evidence to address, and the Tribunal was not required to exclude the witness’s evidence of its own motion. Costs were summarily assessed at £9,500. Permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision dated 18 January 2022 dismissed. The Tribunal’s order erasing Dr Lateef from the register was upheld.