Dr Adnan Sadiq v The General Medical Council

An appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 is a rehearing rather than a supervisory review, but the appellant must show that the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious irregularity. Deference remains appropriate to a specialist tribunal that heard the witnesses, particularly on credibility and sanction.

Procedural interventions to protect a vulnerable witness are permissible where proportionate and compatible with a fair opportunity to present the defence. An irregularity does not justify appellate intervention unless it materially affects fairness or outcome. In a single-complainant case, evidence of friends who heard early disclosures is not equivalent to mutually reinforcing evidence from multiple complainants. Erasure may be proportionate for sexual misconduct that fundamentally undermines public confidence in the medical profession.

Dr Adnan Sadiq appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision dated 10 November 2023. The Tribunal found that he had used his professional position to gain Ms A’s trust and had engaged in non-consensual sexual conduct. It found his fitness to practise impaired and directed erasure from the medical register.

The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s factual findings, its treatment of witness evidence, procedural decisions concerning a vulnerable witness and closing submissions, the omission of a reflections document, questioning, alleged contamination, a temporary remote-hearing interruption, and the proportionality of erasure. The central questions were whether the Tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity, and whether the sanction was appropriate and necessary in the public interest.

1. Nature and standard of appeal. The appeal was a rehearing, not a supervisory review. Under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 and CPR 52.21(3), the court could reconsider the evidence and substitute its own decision, but intervention required proof that the Tribunal was wrong in law or fact, or that the decision was unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. The specialist Tribunal’s advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses warranted appropriate deference.
2. Procedural fairness. The Tribunal was entitled to require clear, concise and non-leading questions when Ms A gave evidence, having regard to her autism and vulnerability. The interruptions were proportionate and did not prevent the defence case being advanced. The misunderstanding concerning closing submissions was regrettable but was cured when counsel was allowed to complete his submissions. The Tribunal’s questions about sexual preferences, choking and the impact of sexual assault were relevant to motive, likelihood, insight and attitude. The temporary loss of the legally qualified chair’s video connection occurred during a procedural pause and caused no material prejudice.
3. Evidence and contamination. The Tribunal was entitled to assess post-event messages as part of the wider context bearing on credibility, motive and sexual intent, rather than as direct proof of penetration. It was not required to resolve every inconsistency where the core account was sufficiently reliable. The contamination authorities concerned multiple complainants whose similar accounts might improperly reinforce one another. This was a single-complainant case; Friends X and Y were not eyewitnesses and their evidence was treated as early disclosure, not independent corroboration. Any risk went to weight rather than admissibility.
4. Mitigation and additional evidence. The omission of the clearly identified Reflections document was a procedural irregularity. Regulatory bodies should take reasonable steps to locate objectively relevant and readily identifiable mitigation material supplied by an absent registrant. The omission was immaterial because the document addressed inappropriate messaging, not the serious non-consensual sexual conduct found proved. The additional evidence also could not have affected the outcome.
5. Sanction and disposal. The Tribunal’s findings of impairment were sustainable. Sexual misconduct undermining public confidence is more difficult to remediate than poor clinical performance, and mitigation may carry limited weight where the profession’s reputation is at stake. Applying the Sanctions Guidance, the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that suspension would not maintain public confidence or proper professional standards. Erasure was appropriate and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

The judgment records an appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 from the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision dated 10 November 2023. The Tribunal directed that Dr Sadiq’s name be erased from the medical register.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s factual findings, impairment decision and sanction.