Racially Aggravated Conduct of Doctors
Doctors and Racist or Racially Aggravated MisConduct
Doctors hold a special place in society and are, in turn, held to more exacting standards in their professional and personal lives. Doctors who discriminate against others or who abuse others due to the victim’s ethnicity will often face formal GMC allegations of serious professional misconduct.
In Lambert-Simpson v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin) – it was held that there are two elements to consider: 1) that the act or omission in question has a purpose behind it which at least in a significant part was referable to race, and 2) that the act was done in a way showing hostility or discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group.
Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was also referred to in the same case. The Act holds that (at para 22):
“vi) The Legal Assessor gave the Panel this advice:
It is alleged that some of the Registrant’s posts on social media were racially-motivated. There is no definition of racially-motivated, and it is a matter for the Panel’s judgement. To assist however, according to Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998: “An offence is racially or religiously aggravated if at the time of committing the offence or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership or presumed membership of a racial or religious group or the offence is motivated purely or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group, based on their membership of that group.” Racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality, including citizenship or ethnic or national origins.”
(March 2023)
See also other case law:
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health Care Professions Council (Roberts) [2020] EWHC 1906 (Admin), quoted in Lambert Simpson above (at para 25(v)):
“25(v). In Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health Care Professions Council (Roberts) [2020] EWHC 1906 (Admin) a racist comment was made by a paramedic during a handover with an ambulance team, using an extremely derogatory acronym. It was accepted to be a “racial slur” (§9) and “deeply offensive” (§10). In that case, there was a finding of no impairment. This was in light, in particular, of the paramedic’s response (§§8-11). But it was not – for one moment – because this was meant to be a ‘private’ comment between colleagues, which no member of the relevant racial group had overheard or was intended to hear; or because it was attempted ‘humour’. Indeed, in her judgment in Roberts, Foster J emphasised the importance of addressing evidence of what may be deep-seated “personality traits” which may be “incompatible with the practice” (§62). She referred to the thoroughgoing repugnance for racially offensive “language” and “attitudes” (§63). A firm resolve and preparedness to address ‘attitudinal’ concerns must, in my judgment, strongly feature – in the public interest – wherever regulatory authorities operate within the field of anti-discrimination. In the present case, the Panel hit the nail on the head when – during the section of the Determination on Sanction – it said the Registrant’s behaviour “suggested some underlying attitudinal concerns”, which it went on to say “needed to be addressed before he could be allowed to return to unrestricted practice”.
If you are a doctor facing an allegation of racist or racially aggravated conduct contact, in strict confidence and without obligation, Doctors Defence Service on 0800 10 88 739