Ahmed Kamel Abdulhamid v General Medical Council

In a statutory appeal from a Medical Practitioners Tribunal, disagreement with factual findings or sanction does not establish an appealable error. Where an appellant has notice but fails to attend, the court may strike out the appeal or consider it on the merits if it decides not to adjourn. A tribunal may proceed in a party’s absence where it weighs fairness, the effect on witnesses, the public interest and efficient disposal, and makes reasonable efforts to accommodate attendance. Repeated or concealed dishonesty about clinical experience is serious professional misconduct. Lack of insight, remediation and acceptance of wrongdoing may justify erasure where there is an ongoing risk to patient safety and confidence in the profession.

The appellant appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision directing his erasure from the medical register. The Tribunal found that he had knowingly misrepresented his urological experience in a job application and interview.

He did not attend the High Court hearing and was unrepresented. Earlier applications for a remote hearing had been refused. The issues were whether the appeal should proceed in his absence and, if considered, whether the Tribunal had erred in its factual findings, findings of misconduct or impairment, or sanction.

1. Disposition. The appeal was struck out and, alternatively, dismissed on its merits.
2. Where an appellant has notice of a medical appeal hearing but does not attend or arrange representation, the court may strike out the appeal or proceed to determine it on the merits. The court relied on Malik v General Medical Council, Al-Daraji v The General Medical Council and General Medical Council v Theodoropoulos.
3. The Tribunal’s decision to proceed in the appellant’s absence was an open case-management decision. It correctly applied Rule 29(2) of the Rules and Adeogba v GMC. Relevant matters included the impact on the appellant, witnesses and evidence, the procedural history, the unsupported reasons for non-attendance, the impracticality of proposed alternatives, the public interest and expeditious disposal. The Tribunal had made reasonable efforts to accommodate attendance.
4. The Tribunal’s factual findings were supported by the evidence and involved credibility assessments it was entitled to make. The appellant identified no error of law, but merely disagreed with the merits. That was not a proper basis for a statutory appeal.
5. Repeated dishonesty in overstating clinical experience to obtain employment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Dishonesty almost always results in impairment, particularly where it harms the profession’s reputation or risks patient harm.
6. Erasure was within the range of sanctions open to the Tribunal. Personal mitigation was usually less relevant in professional misconduct cases. The appellant’s persistent and covered-up dishonesty, lack of insight, apology and remediation, and continuing risk to patient safety placed the misconduct within erasure territory.

This was a statutory appeal to the High Court under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 from the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision dated 6 February 2024 directing erasure. The High Court struck out the appeal and alternatively dismissed it on the merits.