General Medical Council & Anor v Maxwell Dugboyele

The High Court allowed the appeals by the General Medical Council and the Professional Standards Authority against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s finding of no impairment. The Tribunal had found multiple instances of serious professional misconduct by Dr Dugboyele, including sexual harassment of junior female colleagues, but concluded his fitness to practise was not impaired and issued a warning. The High Court concluded the Tribunal gave excessive weight to remediation and future risk, failed properly to consider or give adequate reasons about the second and third limbs of the over-arching objective in section 1B of the Medical Act 1983 (public confidence and proper professional standards), and did not adequately address motive or the relevance of the Sanctions Guidance.

The court quashed the Tribunal’s impairment decision and its warning, substituted a finding that Dr Dugboyele’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his serious professional misconduct, and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Medical Practitioners Tribunal to determine sanction.

This was an appeal under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 by the General Medical Council against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s determination on impairment following findings that Dr Maxwell Dugboyele sexually harassed several junior female colleagues while employed at the Harrogate Trust. The Professional Standards Authority joined the appeal under section 40B. The Tribunal had held the allegations proven, describing a course of tactile and sexualised conduct over several years, but concluded that remediation and low future risk meant Dr Dugboyele’s fitness to practise was not impaired and therefore it could not impose a substantive sanction, issuing instead a formal warning pursuant to section 35D(3) of the 1983 Act.

The High Court identified the issues as:

• whether the Tribunal gave excessive weight to remediation and insufficient weight to the second and third limbs of the over-arching objective in s1B of the Medical Act 1983 (public confidence and proper professional standards);
• whether the Tribunal failed to have adequate regard to the Sanctions Guidance and to explain any departure from it;
• whether the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence on motive for the misconduct and to give adequate reasons for its decision.

On the law, the court applied the Grant test (derived via the Fifth Shipman Report) as to whether findings show impairment in respect of risk to patients, bringing the profession into disrepute, breach of fundamental tenets, or dishonesty, and noted the Tribunal should also consider whether not finding current impairment would undermine public confidence and professional standards.

The court held that the Tribunal had focused disproportionately on remediation and low future risk and had not properly engaged with whether withholding a finding of impairment would undermine public confidence or proper professional standards. The Tribunal also failed adequately to address motive and the relevance of the Sanctions Guidance. For these procedural and reasoning defects the Tribunal’s decision was quashed, the finding of no impairment set aside and replaced with a finding of impairment, and the case remitted for sanction by a differently constituted tribunal.

The appeals by the General Medical Council and the Professional Standards Authority are allowed. The Tribunal erred by over-emphasising remediation and future risk and by failing properly to consider or give adequate reasons about the second and third limbs of the over-arching objective in section 1B of the Medical Act 1983 and the significance of motive and the Sanctions Guidance. The Tribunal’s decision that Dr Dugboyele’s fitness to practise was not impaired is quashed and substituted with a finding of impairment. The Tribunal’s formal warning is also quashed. The case is remitted to a differently constituted Medical Practitioners Tribunal to determine sanction.

Appeal by the General Medical Council under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision of 16 May 2023. The Professional Standards Authority joined the appeal under section 40B. This judgment is the High Court (King's Bench Division Administrative Court) determination [2024] EWHC 2651 (Admin).