Applying for a GMC Rule 12 Review of Decision
Applications under Rule GMC Rule 12
Introduction
Rule 12 (of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004) enables the GMC to review or reconsider certain decisions they have made, prior to a case being referred to a fitness to practise hearing. In cases that have already been referred to a fitness to practise hearing, an application needs to be made under a different rule, namely Rule 28 – to invite the GMC to withdraw the referral to a fitness to practise hearing, and dispose of the case by way of a different process. See our separate article on Rule 28 applications.
Rule 12 Applications
A complainant (such as a patient, clinician or employer), an ‘interested’ person, or a referred doctor, can seek a review of certain decisions made by the the GMC – by making an application to the Registrar. The GMC can also arrange a review of its decisions, of its own volition, if there is new information or an error has been made during their earlier decision-making processes. The reviewable decisions include where:
The GMC takes no further action following an initial review of a complaint about a doctor;
The GMC does not refer a complaint about a doctor to a medical practitioners tribunal;
The GMC agrees undertakings with the doctor or gives the doctor a warning.
Such applications should be made to the Registrar, supported by evidence.
The legislation governing such reviews is as follows.
“Review of decisions
12.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the following decisions may be reviewed by the Registrar–
(a) a decision not to refer an allegation to a medical and a lay Case Examiner or, for any other reason, that an allegation should not proceed beyond rule 4;
(b) a decision not to refer an allegation to the Committee or to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal;
(c) a decision to issue a warning in accordance with rule 11(2), (4) or (6); or
(d) a decision to cease consideration of an allegation upon receipt of undertakings from the practitioner in accordance with rule 10(4).
(2) The Registrar may review all or part of a decision specified in paragraph (1) on his own initiative or on the application of the practitioner, the maker of the allegation (if any) or any other person who, in the opinion of the Registrar, has an interest in the decision when the Registrar has reason to believe that—
(a) the decision may be materially flawed (for any reason) wholly or partly; or
(b) there is new information which may have led, wholly or partly, to a different decision, but only if one or more of the grounds specified in paragraph (3) are also satisfied.
(3) Those grounds are that, in the opinion of the Registrar, a review is–
(a) necessary for the protection of the public;
(b) necessary for the prevention of injustice to the practitioner; or
(c) otherwise necessary in the public interest.
(4) The Registrar shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, commence a review of all or part of a decision specified in paragraph (1) more than two years after it was made.
(5) Where the Registrar decides to review all or part of a decision specified in paragraph (1), he shall in writing—
(a) notify the practitioner, the maker of the allegation (if any) and any other person who, in the opinion of the Registrar, has an interest in the decision of the decision to review and give reasons for that decision;
(b) notify the practitioner, the maker of the allegation (if any) and any other person who, in the opinion of the Registrar, has an interest in the decision of any new information and, where appropriate, provide them with that information; and
(c) seek representations from the practitioner, the maker of the allegation (if any) and any other person who, in the opinion of the Registrar, has an interest in the decision regarding the review of the decision, and shall carry out any investigations which, in the opinion of the Registrar, are appropriate to facilitate the making of the decision under paragraph (6).
(6) Where the Registrar, taking account of all relevant material including that obtained under paragraph (5), concludes that all or part of a decision specified in paragraph (1) was materially flawed (for any reason) or that there is new information which would probably have led, wholly or partly, to a different decision and that a fresh decision is necessary on one or more of the grounds specified in paragraph (3), he may decide—
(a) to substitute for all or part of the original decision any decision which he could have made under Part 2 of these Rules; or
(b) that an allegation should be referred for reconsideration by the Case Examiners under rule 8, 10 or 11.
Otherwise, he must decide that the original decision should stand.
(7) Where the Registrar has reviewed all or part of a decision specified in paragraph (1), he shall notify–
(a) the practitioner;
(b) the maker of the allegation (if any); and
(c) any other person who, in the opinion of the Registrar, has an interest in receiving the notification,
in writing, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the decision under paragraph (6) and the reasons for that decision.”
As set out in: General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004
Gannon v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 1998 (Admin)
R (Chaudhuri) v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 6621
If you are a doctor whoe would like legal assistance in making an application for review pursuant to Rule 12, or you seek legal advice in relation to potentially making such an application, call us in strict confidence and without obligation on o800 10 88 739.