Dr Stephen Higgins v General Medical Council

The appellant appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal's findings that he had committed sexual misconduct towards four junior female members of staff and the Tribunal's decision to erase him from the medical register. The High Court applied the civil standard of proof and the established appellate principles for s.40 appeals, including deference to the Tribunal's advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses. The court considered (i) whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to relevant contemporaneous or other evidence and misapplied credibility assessments, (ii) whether it gave adequate reasons, (iii) whether it inconsistently weighed inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, and (iv) whether it erred in assessing insight and imposing erasure.

The court rejected each ground of appeal. It held that the Tribunal had considered the messages and other material relied on by the appellant, gave adequate reasons for its factual findings (including reasons for preferring the complainants' accounts and for concluding the conduct was sexually motivated and unlawful harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010), and was entitled to treat the appellant's limited insight and continued denials as relevant to sanction. On the sanction, the Tribunal's conclusion that erasure was necessary and proportionate was upheld given the pattern of sexually motivated conduct, abuse of position and limited remediation/insight.

This is an appeal by Dr Stephen Higgins against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal's findings that he engaged in sexually motivated and harassing conduct towards four junior female colleagues and its decision to erase him from the medical register.

Background and nature of the claim:

• The appellant, a general practitioner and partner at the practice, was alleged to have sent sexualised messages, made unwelcome sexual comments, hugged a junior member of staff without permission and on one occasion grabbed and attempted to kiss a junior employee. Allegations covered conduct in 2020–2021 towards four named complainants. The Tribunal found most factual allegations proved, found sexual motivation proved in relation to most incidents and found unlawful sexual harassment under section 26(2) Equality Act 2010 in respect of three complainants; it found the appellant's fitness to practise impaired and imposed erasure.

Procedural posture: Appeal under section 40 Medical Act 1983 to the High Court (a re-hearing appellate jurisdiction with deference to the Tribunal's advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses).

Issues framed by the court:

1. Whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to relevant evidence (including messages produced by the appellant) and so erred in factual findings and inferences about whether conduct was unwanted/sexually motivated;
2. Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons for its findings of fact and for treating conduct as sexual/unlawful harassment;
3. Whether there was an inconsistent or unfair approach to weighing evidence favouring GMC witnesses; and
4. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing insight and remediation and in imposing erasure as disproportionate.

Court's reasoning and conclusions:

The judge reviewed the Tribunal's lengthy, detailed determination and concluded the Tribunal had considered the contemporaneous messages and other evidence relied on by the appellant and had expressly recorded and evaluated the salient credibility points. The court emphasised the Tribunal's advantageous position in hearing and observing witnesses and applied the established tests for intervening in findings of primary fact. The Tribunal's reasons were found adequate under the Southall line of authority: the decision explained why it preferred the complainants' accounts and why the appellant's alternative accounts were implausible or inconsistent.

On sexual motivation and unlawful harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal's inferences (drawing on pattern, secrecy and explicitly sexual requests) were reasonable. On sanction the Tribunal properly weighed aggravating and mitigating features, found limited insight and remediation and concluded erasure was necessary to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and uphold standards. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

Appeal dismissed. The court concluded the Tribunal's factual findings, credibility assessments and reasoning were within the generous ambit of reasonable conclusions, that the Tribunal had given adequate reasons, and that erasure was a proportionate sanction in light of the sexually motivated misconduct, abuse of position and limited insight and remediation.

Appeal under section 40 Medical Act 1983 from a Medical Practitioners Tribunal determination. The Tribunal heard fact, impairment and sanction stages, found most allegations proved, concluded fitness to practise impaired and ordered erasure (Tribunal determination cited in the judgment; no separate neutral citation for the Tribunal decision provided).