Doctor Aloaye Foy-Yamah v The General Medical Council

Statutory appeals from a medical tribunal are governed by the statutory and CPR tests of whether the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity. The appellate court must respect primary factual findings, particularly credibility findings, while correcting material errors and drawing justified inferences. In sexual-misconduct cases, deference based on professional expertise may be reduced, but the tribunal’s assessment of live evidence remains important.

A tribunal may determine misconduct only on the charges laid and facts alleged, although all facts proved may be relevant to fitness to practise. A finding that future risk is absent requires a logical and evidential foundation. Here, the tribunal’s credibility, consent and charge-based misconduct findings stood, but its finding of no future risk was unsustainable. The sanction was therefore remitted for reconsideration.

There were cross statutory appeals under sections 40 and 40A of the Medical Act 1983 concerning findings by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel that Dr Foy had sexually assaulted and raped Ms A, a woman whom he had previously treated but who was not alleged to be his patient during the charged incidents.

Dr Foy challenged the panel’s credibility findings and alleged procedural irregularities concerning medical records, the burden of proof, a changed interim finding and transcripts. The GMC challenged findings that Dr Foy reasonably believed Ms A would consent to certain touching, the treatment of the bedroom incident, the assessment of aggravating factors and the finding that he posed no future risk. The central issues were whether the panel’s factual and procedural decisions were wrong or unjust, and whether its findings on impairment and sanction were sustainable.

1. Dr Foy’s appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The panel adopted a granular assessment of Ms A’s evidence, considered the inconsistencies and alleged dishonesty, assessed the competing evidence independently on each charge and applied the civil standard of proof. Its findings remained within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement. The panel did not reverse the burden of proof merely because it had earlier rejected a no-case submission.

2. The panel had sufficient evidence for the challenged factual details and gave adequate reasons. Its treatment of post-event conduct, including delayed reporting and apparently ordinary behaviour, did not show an improper assumption about how a victim would react. Excluding earlier sexual-health records was a case-management decision within a broad discretion and caused no injustice. The panel was entitled to revise an interim no-case finding when reaching its final determination, and obtaining earlier transcripts to refresh recollection did not create apparent bias or unfairness.

3. GMC findings-of-fact appeal. The GMC’s challenges to the reasonable-belief findings were dismissed. Once the panel accepted the underlying events, it was required to consider consent and reasonable belief. Its inferences, drawn from the surrounding circumstances and Dr Foy’s admissions, were within the range open to it and its reasons were sufficient.

4. Bedroom incident. The panel was entitled to determine misconduct on the charge as pleaded. The charge did not allege that Ms A was Dr Foy’s patient or that a close personal relationship formed part of the charged misconduct. Rule 17(2)(k) of the Fitness to Practise Rules did not permit those matters to be used to alter the charge without amendment.

5. Future risk and sanction. The GMC succeeded on the challenge to the finding of no future risk and no public-protection impairment. The panel’s conclusion that the rape was isolated and would never be repeated lacked sufficient logical and evidential foundation. It failed properly to address the ordinary nature of the circumstances, Dr Foy’s lack of insight and lack of remediation. The sanction was remitted for reconsideration by a tribunal. Dr Foy remained suspended pending that reconsideration.

The judgment describes appeals from a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel. The panel found serious misconduct, public-interest impairment and imposed 12 months’ suspension with review.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Dr Foy’s appeal dismissed. The GMC’s appeal allowed only on the finding of no future risk and public-protection impairment. Sanction remitted for reconsideration.