General Medical Council v Dr Neill William Roy Carter

An interim suspension order may be extended where continuation is necessary for public protection and in the public interest, and is appropriate and proportionate. The court may proceed despite the practitioner’s absence where service was duly effected and an adjournment would allow necessary protection to lapse. Any prejudice to the practitioner must be weighed against the public interest, including unresolved health and fitness-to-practise concerns. A routine direction requiring advance notice of non-party applications for documents should not automatically be included in interim extension orders. Such a direction may be justified where confidential information makes notice appropriate.

The General Medical Council applied to extend for five months an interim suspension order imposed on Dr Neill William Roy Carter. The order was due to expire on 29 December 2023. The defendant did not attend or respond to the application, but the court was satisfied that he had been properly notified by email and that service had been authorised.

The application arose while fitness-to-practise proceedings concerning health issues and other concerns were progressing. A substantive hearing was scheduled for March and April 2024. The central issues were whether the interim order should continue, whether the court should proceed in the defendant’s absence, and whether the draft order should contain a routine direction concerning non-party access to documents.

1. Extension granted. The court was satisfied that the GMC had discharged the burden of demonstrating the necessity, for the protection of the public and in the public interest, of continuing the interim suspension order for five months until 29 May 2024.
2. Proceeding in the defendant’s absence. The defendant had been duly notified at an email address which he was actively using. An order for service by email had been made, and the hearing date had been clearly notified. It was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to determine the application without adjournment, since otherwise the existing order would expire before the next stage of the proceedings.
3. Prejudice and public interest. The court considered the prejudice caused by continuation. The defendant had previously stated through solicitors that he did not intend to return to medical practice. In any event, any prejudice was decisively outweighed by strong public interest imperatives. Those imperatives included unresolved fitness-to-practise issues on health grounds, two health assessments completed in March 2023, and further concerns arising from an encounter with police in September 2020.
4. Duration. Although the proceedings had taken a considerable time, the delay was explained by the history of agreed and repeatedly pursued health assessments, the case examiners’ referral in July 2023 and service of draft allegations in October 2023. A five-month extension provided sensible headroom before the scheduled hearing.
5. Document-access direction. The court was not persuaded that a direction routinely requiring at least 14 days’ notice of an application by a non-party under CPR 5.4C(2) should automatically appear in interim extension orders. The issue was left open for future written argument. In this case, however, the presence of confidential information in the health assessments justified including the direction.

First-instance application determined by the High Court (Administrative Court). No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.