Shah Ali v The General Medical Council

The Court considered an appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination of 28 February 2024 which found the appellant dishonest and ordered erasure. Key legal issues were the meaning of the phrase "fitness to practise investigation" on a disclosure form, whether the appellant knew his answer was untrue and acted dishonestly, and whether the Tribunal gave adequate consideration to a material factual dispute about a March 2020 telephone conversation with a Bringing Back Staff officer. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s interpretation that the Form required disclosure of the GMC investigation (whether under the Rules or in the ordinary sense) and upheld findings that the Declaration was untrue and that the appellant knew it to be untrue. However the Court found that the Tribunal failed to resolve a material conflict between the appellant’s account and that of Ms Burbidge about their March 2020 conversation, and that this failure meant the Tribunal should not have proceeded to a finding of dishonesty and to sanction without first resolving that dispute. The claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 and other procedural complaints were dismissed.

Background and nature of the application: The appellant, a doctor, appealed as of right under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against an MPTS determination (28 February 2024) erasing his name from the Medical Register for misconduct in the form of dishonesty arising from a disclosure made on a Disclosure and Barring Service Declaration Form when applying to the Bringing Back Staff programme. The appellant also sought to challenge the continued finding of impairment arising from a dangerous driving conviction and the sanction imposed. The Tribunal below had found the appellant’s June 2020 Declaration untrue, that he knew it was untrue, and that he was dishonest; it also reviewed the dangerous driving finding and imposed erasure.

Issues framed by the Court: (i) What is meant by "a fitness to practise investigation" in question 7 of the Form and whether the appellant’s answer was untrue; (ii) whether the appellant knew the Declaration was untrue and acted dishonestly; (iii) whether the Tribunal failed to resolve a material conflict of evidence between the appellant and Ms Burbidge about a March 2020 telephone conversation; (iv) procedural challenges about specification of allegations and adjournment; (v) whether the Tribunal unlawfully victimised the appellant contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010; and (vi) whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to the appellant’s submissions (including remediation evidence).

Court’s reasoning and conclusions: The Court held that "fitness to practise investigation" in the Form must be read widely (in context and in light of its purpose) and covers investigations in the ordinary sense and the Rule-based processes in Part 2 of the Rules. The correspondence the appellant had received from the GMC made plain an investigation was ongoing and the appellant therefore gave an untrue answer and knew it to be untrue. On the question of dishonesty, however, the Court concluded the Tribunal did not resolve a material factual dispute about what was said in the March 2020 call to Ms Burbidge. That dispute was relevant to whether the appellant honestly believed the matter to be irrelevant to the Bringing Back Staff application and therefore material to any finding of dishonesty and to the assessment of gravity/insight. Because the Tribunal did not resolve that dispute or explain why it rejected the appellant’s account, the Tribunal’s finding of dishonesty and its consequent sanction could not stand. The Court rejected the appellant’s complaints on specification/adjournment, the victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 (the Tribunal’s concern was the appellant’s focus on counter‑allegations rather than the making of allegations as such), and the contention that the Tribunal wholly ignored his submissions; the Tribunal had considered mitigation and remediation but gave them limited weight.

Remedy: The Court allowed the appeal in part: it held that the appeal succeeds on the ground that the Tribunal failed to resolve the material dispute about the March 2020 conversation and on the related ground that it was not open to the Tribunal to make a finding of dishonesty without resolving that dispute. The matter is remitted for reconsideration by a tribunal. Other grounds failed.

Appeal allowed in part. The court upheld the Tribunal’s interpretation of the disclosure question and its findings that the Declaration was untrue and that the appellant knew it to be untrue, but concluded that the Tribunal failed to resolve a material conflict of evidence about the March 2020 conversation with Ms Burbidge. Because that unresolved factual dispute was material to any finding of dishonesty and to the assessment of sanction, the Tribunal’s finding of dishonesty and its sanction cannot stand. The matter is remitted for reconsideration by a tribunal; other procedural and Equality Act complaints were dismissed.

Appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 from a Medical Practitioners Tribunal determination dated 28 February 2024 (MPTS decision finding dishonesty and ordering erasure). Earlier fitness to practise proceedings and suspension orders were imposed in 2021 and reviewed multiple times; appeals against extensions of suspension were dismissed by HHJ Mithani KC on 29 September 2023. The present High Court judgment [2024] EWHC 2272 (Admin) allows the appeal in part and remits the matter to a tribunal for reconsideration.