Pool v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 3791In this case the High Court considered an appeal against suspension brought by a doctor found guilty of acting as an expert witness where he had
Pool v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 3791
In this case the High Court considered an appeal against suspension brought by a doctor found guilty of acting as an expert witness where he had insufficient expertise in the relevant field. It concluded that suspension was disproportionate and that a condition would be sufficient in the circumstances.
Dr P appealed against a decision reached by the General Medical Council's fitness to practise panel ('the Panel'). The Panel concluded that Dr P's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and that he should be suspended from practice for three months.
In August 2011, Dr P was instructed as an expert psychiatrist in proceedings brought by the Health and Care Professions Council concerning the fitness to practise of a paramedic. Dr P prepared a report about the paramedic and considered whether her psychiatric condition affected her fitness to practise. An objection was upheld about Dr P's competence as an expert and he was subsequently referred to the GMC in relation to concerns over his own fitness to practise.
The Panel found that: Dr P was not an expert in the field of General Adult Psychiatry; that he failed to restrict his opinion to areas where he had expert knowledge or direct experience; and that he gave evidence on matters outside his professional competence. The Panel had also determined that he had failed to give reasons for his opinion that the paramedic's fitness to practise was wholly and indefinitely impaired.
Dr P challenged the Panel's findings and argued that the sanction was disproportionate.
The High Court upheld the Panel's determinations regarding Dr P's qualifications and expertise. Furthermore, it held that the Panel was entitled to conclude that Dr P failed to provide an adequate report as he had not set out reasons for the opinion he had reached. The court also agreed with the Panel's decision to regard Dr P's misconduct as serious and that it warranted action on his registration (in particular, the Panel's finding that there was a strong public interest in ensuring that experts did not act outside of their competence was held to be correct).
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Panel had failed to explain why a condition prohibiting Dr P from acting as an expert in fitness to practise proceedings for three months was insufficient. The decision to suspend Dr P was disproportionate in all the circumstances as it not only ensured that he did not act outside of his professional competence but also prevented him from acting in areas within his professional competence. The court replaced the suspension with a condition that Dr P should not accept instructions to act as an expert in fitness to practise proceedings for a period of three months.
In this case the High Court considered an appeal against suspension brought by a doctor found guilty of acting as an expert witness where he had insufficient expertise in the relevant field. It concluded that suspension was disproportionate and that a condition would be sufficient in the circumstances.
Dr P appealed against a decision reached by the General Medical Council's fitness to practise panel ('the Panel'). The Panel concluded that Dr P's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and that he should be suspended from practice for three months.
In August 2011, Dr P was instructed as an expert psychiatrist in proceedings brought by the Health and Care Professions Council concerning the fitness to practise of a paramedic. Dr P prepared a report about the paramedic and considered whether her psychiatric condition affected her fitness to practise. An objection was upheld about Dr P's competence as an expert and he was subsequently referred to the GMC in relation to concerns over his own fitness to practise.
The Panel found that: Dr P was not an expert in the field of General Adult Psychiatry; that he failed to restrict his opinion to areas where he had expert knowledge or direct experience; and that he gave evidence on matters outside his professional competence. The Panel had also determined that he had failed to give reasons for his opinion that the paramedic's fitness to practise was wholly and indefinitely impaired.
Dr P challenged the Panel's findings and argued that the sanction was disproportionate.
The High Court upheld the Panel's determinations regarding Dr P's qualifications and expertise. Furthermore, it held that the Panel was entitled to conclude that Dr P failed to provide an adequate report as he had not set out reasons for the opinion he had reached. The court also agreed with the Panel's decision to regard Dr P's misconduct as serious and that it warranted action on his registration (in particular, the Panel's finding that there was a strong public interest in ensuring that experts did not act outside of their competence was held to be correct).
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Panel had failed to explain why a condition prohibiting Dr P from acting as an expert in fitness to practise proceedings for three months was insufficient. The decision to suspend Dr P was disproportionate in all the circumstances as it not only ensured that he did not act outside of his professional competence but also prevented him from acting in areas within his professional competence. The court replaced the suspension with a condition that Dr P should not accept instructions to act as an expert in fitness to practise proceedings for a period of three months.