2022-03-06 18:31:36
At our annual seminar on 4 May, Mark Harries QC will be talking about Sexual misconduct in healthcare Fitness to Practise cases. Places are still available for the seminar, but please book as soon as possible to enable us to deal with seating and catering arrangements. Meanwhile, members may be interested in the recent case of General Medical Council v Ahmed [2022] EWHC 403 (Admin).
Although the Williams Committee which reported after the Bawa-Garba case recommended that the GMC should lose its right of appeal, this was a case in which the GMC appealed against a two-month suspension imposed by the Medical Practitioner Tribunal.
The allegations against Dr Ahmed were that after a consultation with Patient A, a 14-year-old girl, he located her Facebook account and sent a friend request to her; and that, following a consultation with Patient B, he used her medical records to obtain her personal details to send her a friend request on Facebook and sent WhatsApp messages to her phone. These incidents had occurred 6 years before the hearing.
The Tribunal found the facts proved except that, in relation to Patient A, the Facebook request was not sexually motivated in the sense that they were actions in pursuit of a sexual relationship with Patient A. There had been no inappropriate relationship. In the case of Patient B, the Tribunal found that Dr Ahmed’s actions were sexually motivated although his actions did not go beyond the unwanted WhatsApp messages – there had been no inappropriate physical relationship. Dr Ahmed had been of good character and there were no other complaints against him. The Tribunal found that the incidents were isolated and not part of a pattern of conduct.
Mr Justice Murray dismissed the GMC’s appeal, saying amongst other things:
“While the MPT quite rightly found that Dr Ahmed had committed serious professional misconduct in relation to Patient B, which was sexually motivated, it appears that it considered that, on the spectrum of sexual misconduct, this fell toward the less serious end. I agree. The judgment of Kerr J in the case of Arunachalam v GMC underlines the importance of considering the scale of the offending behaviour, even in a case of sexual misconduct, and appropriately evaluating it by reference to the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Erasure is not an automatic consequence in a case involving sexual misconduct. It all depends on the relevant facts. In my view, the [Tribunal] properly approached the assessment of the sanction on this basis and reached a decision on sanction that fell within the bounds of what it could properly and reasonably decide.”
Do you agree with the outcome? Join us on 4 May to air your views.