Dr Shawn Joseph v General Medical Council

On an appeal against professional disciplinary findings of fact, the appellate court should interfere only where the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. Primary fact-finding, especially where credibility is central, commands particular respect.

A complainant’s uncorroborated recollection, given years after an alleged assault, may nevertheless provide a proper basis for findings on the balance of probabilities. The tribunal must assess the whole evidential picture, including antecedent and subsequent conduct, inconsistencies, and the absence of physical or contemporaneous evidence. Reasons need not address every detail expressly if the tribunal’s reasoning is clear from the decision read fairly and in context. An evidential gap may properly be resolved by inference where the surrounding findings make that inference rational and supported.

Dr Joseph appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision erasing him from the medical register.

The Tribunal found that he had drugged and raped a younger female colleague while she was unconscious, and had engaged in earlier and later sexually motivated and harassing conduct. The appeal challenged the primary factual findings and the resulting impairment and sanction. Particular reliance was placed on the complainant’s delayed reporting, lack of forensic corroboration, alleged inconsistencies, and the fact that she said she had locked her bedroom door before losing consciousness.

The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s findings were wrong, or unjust because of procedural irregularity, including inadequacy of reasons.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings and the sanction of erasure were neither wrong nor unjust by reason of procedural or other irregularity.
2. Under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 and Civil Procedure Rule 52.21, the appeal was by way of rehearing on the evidence before the Tribunal. The appellate court should be slow to interfere with primary fact-finding, particularly where the Tribunal had seen and heard the witnesses and had relevant expertise in evaluating evidence.
3. The absence of corroboration, forensic evidence, contemporaneous reporting, or a complete recollection did not make an adverse finding irrational or unfair. The Tribunal was required to assess whether the core allegations were true on the balance of probabilities, examining the evidence as a whole. It was entitled to rely substantially on the complainant’s evidence, while addressing its limitations and testing it against the surrounding circumstances.
4. The Tribunal’s findings were supported by the antecedent evidence of Dr Joseph’s unwanted sexual interest, unprofessional conduct and dishonesty, the evidence of his conduct after the alleged assault, the complainant’s account of her symptoms and injuries, and discrepancies in Dr Joseph’s evidence. The Tribunal did not rely exclusively or uncritically on the complainant’s credibility.
5. The locked-door issue did not create an inevitable inconsistency. The evidence permitted the inference that Dr Joseph had seen where the bedroom key was placed, had used it to enter after the complainant lost consciousness, and had replaced it. His evidence that external access was impossible was internally inconsistent, uncorroborated and not specific to the complainant’s door.
6. There was no requirement for the Tribunal to treat the locked-door issue as a preliminary issue or to articulate findings about every step occurring during the complainant’s unconsciousness. The reasons were sufficiently apparent from the determination read with the evidence and submissions. The appeal therefore failed on both rationality and reasons grounds.

High Court (Administrative Court): Dr Joseph appealed the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision dated 18 March 2022. The appeal was dismissed.