Dr Sarah Benn v The General Medical Council

Misconduct under the Medical Act 1983 is determined by the statutory scheme and applicable professional guidance. There are no closed categories, and conduct outside medical practice may qualify where it is serious and capable of undermining public confidence or proper professional standards.

A general expectation that doctors obey the law does not create an unconditional, freestanding disciplinary rule. The court must assess the conduct, its professional connection, its consequences and the practitioner’s current position. Public opinion is relevant context but does not determine misconduct or impairment. Repeated unlawful conduct, coupled with an intention to continue, may justify a finding of impaired fitness to practise and suspension.

This was an appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision finding that Dr Sarah Benn’s fitness to practise was impaired through misconduct and directing her suspension from the medical register for five months, with a review hearing.

The misconduct arose from Dr Benn’s repeated breaches of a High Court injunction during peaceful Just Stop Oil protests. She had been imprisoned for 32 days following the final breach. She argued that her environmental motivations, the non-violent nature of her conduct and the absence of any clinical criticism meant that there was no statutory misconduct or impairment, and that suspension was disproportionate.

The central issues were the proper approach to misconduct outside medical practice, the relevance of unlawful conduct and public opinion, current impairment, and proportionality of sanction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s finding that Dr Benn’s fitness to practise was impaired through misconduct, and its direction for five months’ suspension with a review hearing, were upheld.
2. An appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 is by way of rehearing. The court may substitute its own decision, while according appropriate respect to the specialist Tribunal. Greater latitude may be appropriate where the conduct is outside professional practice: [2021] EWCA Civ 623; [2016] UKSC 64.
3. Misconduct must be assessed by reference to the current statutory scheme and Good medical practice. There are no closed categories. Conduct outside medical practice is not subject to a wholly different test, but its external character is relevant. Such conduct may qualify where it is serious and capable of undermining one of the statutory objectives in section 1(1B), particularly public confidence or proper professional standards. Moral blameworthiness is not an essential element.
4. The Tribunal overstated the effect of the 2013 guidance. The reference to acting within the law expressed a general expectation of lawful personal and professional conduct, but it was not an unconditional freestanding requirement and did not require the Tribunal to identify circumstances in which doctors were permitted to break the law. The 2024 guidance could not be applied retrospectively, although it assisted in understanding the continuing emphasis on high personal and professional standards.
5. The Tribunal was entitled to take account of the disruption caused by the organised protest, including consequences resulting from the collective action of other protestors. Dr Benn had an opportunity to address the issue at sanction, and any procedural unfairness was immaterial.
6. The Tribunal’s supposition about what the majority of the public would think was unsupported and was not a proper basis for deciding misconduct. Public opinion does not determine the statutory questions. Nevertheless, the Tribunal had asked the correct impairment question: whether there was a current or ongoing risk to public confidence or proper professional standards.
7. Dr Benn’s motivations and sympathy for the environmental cause were relevant but did not convert deliberate and serious unlawful conduct into something less than misconduct. Her use of her status as a doctor to give prominence and authority to the unlawful protests established the required connection with the profession. Her repeated breaches, imprisonment and stated intention to continue acting outside the law justified the impairment finding.
8. Suspension was necessary and proportionate. No workable conditions could address the risk while Dr Benn intended to continue the conduct. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying no action, and a review hearing reasonably allowed for the possibility of developing insight.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and upheld the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision to find impairment through misconduct and impose five months’ suspension with a review hearing.