GMC MPTS Review Hearings

Review Hearings in GMC/MPTS Cases

There are two types of review hearing held at the MPTS. The first relates to reviews of interim orders (called Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) hearings), and the second relates to substantive fitness review sanctions. To read more about IOT reviews, see our dedicated article on GMC/MPTS IOT Proceedings. The remainder of this article examines Reviews in GMC Medical Practitioner Tribunal substantive fitness to practise hearings.

At a fitness to practise hearing, where a doctor’s fitness to practise has been found to be currently impaired, and where the tribunal had imposed an interim order of conditions or suspension, there will be a review hearing.

At the review hearing the doctor must present evidence relating to their current fitness to practise. Where a doctor’s fitness to practise is found to be still impaired a further sanction can be imposed, which could be a period of suspension, conditions, or in some cases erasure. It is therefore very important that a doctor prepares well for a GMC/MPTS Review Hearing.

The tribunal will usually have listed the types of evidence that a doctor might choose to present, which would be of assistance to the tribunal tasked with reviewing the evidence. Some doctors fail to appreciate how important it is to follow through on that guidance. Further, there are often a number of other steps that a doctor can take to increase their prospects of success at a hearing.

In Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin), the judge opined (at para 23) that:

In Practical terms there is a persuasive burden on the practitioner at a review to demonstrate that he or she has fully acknowledged why past professional performance was deficient and through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement sufficiently addressed past impairments“.

It should also be noted that at paragraph 163 of the Sanctions Guidance (2018) holds that:

It is important that no doctor is allowed to resume unrestricted practice following a period of conditional registration or suspension unless the tribunal considers that they are safe to do so“.

Such principles will influence the decision-making of the tribunal and a doctor must therefore ensure that they present the appropriate evidence needed to satisfy such concerns that may arise from a long period away from unrestricted practice.

Where a doctor does not accept the past findings of a MPT tribunal, it will create a difficulty for the doctor to show developed or developing insight. However, it has been held in Blakeley v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 905 (Admin) (April 2019) that a doctor does not necessarily have to accept that they did conduct themselves as alleged, though this is in relation to substantive first instance FTP tribunal hearings, rather than reviews. In some ways this judgment is confusing but it directs the tribunal and lawyers to focus on a number of themes that show that the doctor understands the wider ramifications of such conduct, even if they maintain their denial. This case might possibly cause tension within the tribunal process where a doctor denies wrongdoing at a review hearing, but if the appeal period has long expired the case law probably has scant relevance. See also: Amao v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 147 (Admin) () and Yusuff v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 13 (Admin). (January 2018)

In the appeal case of Professional Standards Authority v The Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 39 it was stated that:

“Whether a registrant has shown insight into his misconduct, and how much insight he has shown, are classically matters of fact and judgment for the professional disciplinary committee in the light of the evidence before it. Some of the evidence may be matters of fact, some of it merely subjective. In assessing a registrant’s insight, a professional disciplinary committee will need to weigh all the relevant evidence, both oral and written, which provides a picture of it.” (January 2014)

The doctor will need to demonstrate developed insight in relation to the past allegations. This requires a doctor to go on further courses on subjects related to the transgressions. Remember, the reviewing tribunal will want to see recent evidence of course work, reflection, and work with a tutor in some instances. Wide reading is also encouraged, and access to Google Scholar can assist in this regard. It is generally free to use.

The doctor must also show that they have maintained their knowledge and skills insofar as is possible, in relation to their clinical practice.

If a doctor has been out of practise for a while, it may be necessary for them to undertake a clinical attachment, attend additional core and specialist courses (in medicine) in person and online (over and above those normally taken for a review), and to provide more extensive reflections on the past failings and on the updating that the doctor has done to show the clinical relevance and professional relevance of such study.

Reviews are not straightforward matters and we would recommend that a doctor takes legal advice when preparing for a review hearing. A review tribunal has the power to erase or impose other orders, and so a doctor should do their utmost to provide proper evidence in good time.

Witnesses can be called to evidence learning or in relation to the character of the doctor. Again, this needs careful planning.

Can I Appeal a GMC/MPT Review Order?

The imposition of a Review is not an appealable order. A doctor would have to appeal the sanction imposed by the tribunal and be successful in that appeal for the review order to be quashed, per Simawi v General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 2168 (Admin) (August 2020)

In Dhoorah v. Nursing and Midwifery Council [2020] EWHC
3356 (Admin) the High Court held that a panel conducting a review was entitled to extend the suspension on new grounds pursuant to the overarching objective. The first panel had imposed a 12 month suspension solely on the ground that the registrant was impaired because of public interest considerations. At the Review, the panel imposed a further six month suspension on two grounds, namely in the public interest and for public protection. Held: that a reviewing panel can reassess risk and impose a further period of suspension with a review on additional public policy grounds.

Doctors Defence Service advises and represents doctors in relation to and at GMC/MPTS IOT and MPT Review Hearings. For more information, contact us on 0800 10 88 739