Joseph Loze Onwude v General Medical Council

On an application to review an interim suspension imposed on a medical practitioner, the Administrative Court’s function is to assess risk on the assumption that the allegations are well-founded. It does not determine the underlying facts or the merits of the professional disciplinary case. The relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay and prejudice to the practitioner.

A challenge to an earlier decision withdrawing a licence must use the prescribed appeal or restoration procedure. It cannot be recast as a challenge to a later interim order. An extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or applications that are totally without merit. Three such applications are the bare minimum for persistence, but the court may consider other unmeritorious litigation and the wider conduct of the party.

Dr Joseph Loze Onwude brought a claim concerning the Interim Orders Tribunal’s decision to continue suspending his registration until 9 November 2023. The General Medical Council applied for the claim to be treated as a challenge under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983, for the interim suspension to be extended for a further 12 months, and for an extended civil restraint order.

The dispute included Dr Onwude’s contention that his licence had been unlawfully withdrawn after he had revalidated in 2020, and his argument that secondary legislation could not lawfully be enforced. The central issues were the scope of the court’s review of the interim order, whether further suspension was justified, and whether his history of claims and applications warranted an extended civil restraint order.

1. Dr Onwude’s claim was dismissed and certified as totally without merit. The court had power to consider only the validity of the IOT’s decision to extend the interim suspension. Any challenge to the Assistant Registrar’s decision of 3 June 2021 to withdraw the licence was out of time, used the wrong procedure and was brought against the wrong defendant. The available routes included an appeal to the Registration Appeals Panel under section 29F(1)(b) of the Medical Act 1983 and an application for restoration under regulation 5 of the 2012 Regulations.
2. Applying General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the court’s task was to assess whether the allegations, rather than their truth or falsity, justified continuation of the suspension. The court was not required to make primary findings about the underlying allegations or decide whether Dr Onwude had in fact revalidated. The allegations of practising without a licence, inappropriate treatment and prescribing, and possible breaches of patient confidentiality were serious. They justified a further suspension on the balance of probabilities, particularly because criminal proceedings were pending and, if proved, the conduct would present a serious risk of harm to patients.
3. The court rejected the submission that the 2012 Regulations could not be relied on because they were secondary legislation. They were validly made under powers conferred by the Medical Act 1983 and approved by order of the Privy Council.
4. The GMC’s application to extend the interim suspension was granted for 12 months.
5. Applying CPR 3.11(2) and Practice Direction 3C, the court was satisfied that Dr Onwude had persistently issued claims or made applications that were totally without merit. Three unmeritorious claims are the bare minimum for persistence, but previous claims not certified at the time may also be considered, following Re Ludlam (a Bankrupt) [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch) and R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2007] 1 WLR 536. An extended civil restraint order was necessary, proportionate and appropriate for three years.