A Systematic Review of Section 40 Statutory Appeals under The Medical Act 1983 Against The General Medical Council On Decisions To Erase A Doctor From The UK Medical Register For Dishonesty Between 2003-2017.

 

Mr. Joseph Loze Onwude, MBBS, MSc, DLSH&TM, FRCOG., Dip Comp Sci.

Retired Gynaecologist, Statistician, and Epidemiologist

Medico-Legal Services for Doctors

Correspondence:

Mr. Joseph Loze Onwude,

Apartment 51 Whitecroft Works,

69 Furnace Hill,

Sheffield S3 7AH, UK.

 Email: jonwude9@gmail.com

 

No Source of Funding.

There is no Patient or Public Involvement.

Abstract

Research Question

Does the General Medical Council (GMC) understand the allegation and appreciate the
finding of dishonesty when it erases doctors from the Medical Register?

Research Aim and Objectives

Aim

To systematically assess Section 40 appeals against the General Medical Council (GMC) when erasure from the Medical Register is recommended after the Medical Act 1983 was amended in 2002.

Objectives

1. To classify the appeal decisions following a Section 40 appeal to erase a doctor from the Medical Register for serious misconduct for dishonesty.

2. To analyze the appeal decisions following a Section 40 appeal to erase a doctor from the Medical Register for dishonesty.

3. To classify the main grounds for appeal following a Section 40 appeal to erase a doctor from the Medical Register for  dishonesty.

Results

There were 36 Section 40 statutory appeals to the High Court. For represented doctors, the success rate where the appeal was allowed was 29% (7/24). The commonest ground of appeal was a disproportionate decision to erase. For unrepresented doctors acting as litigants in person, the success rate where the appeal was allowed was 8.3% (1/12). The commonest ground of appeal was also a disproportionate decision to erase.

Strengths

1.     This systematic review aims to inform doctors and lawyers on the statistics involving
    a medico-legal issue, Section 40 Appeals from the Medical Act 1983.
          2. Uniquely, it informs on Dishonesty which is serious misconduct.
          3. The methodology includes all available cases in UK Case Law.
          4. The methodology is extensive, including the search strategy, results of Boolean
    Search terms, Comparison between legal search engines, Methods of dealing with    
    duplicate information, and Criteria for study inclusion and exclusion.
          5. Tabulated results of Case Law. 

Weaknesses

There are no weaknesses with the Abstract, Methodology, Results and Conclusions, and References of Case Law. 

Conclusions

As Unrepresented doctors have a low chance of success at a Section 40 Appeal in the High Court, they must try very hard to get legal representation through, for example, crowdfunding. Alternatively, they can consider a different career.

 

Introduction

All doctors who practice in the UK must be registered with the General Medical Council (GMC). The GMC has statutory powers to maintain a register under The Medical Act 1983 as amended in 2002. Apart from registration, the General Medical Council has statutory powers to investigate and sanction doctors who have complaints made against them. The most severe sanction is an erasure from the Medical Register.

This severe sanction to erase a doctor has a statutory appeal to an Appeal court, called a Section 40 Appeal. The following decisions are appealable decisions for the purposes of this section, that is to say - (a) a decision of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (The MPTS) under section 35D above giving a direction for erasure, for suspension or for conditional registration or varying the conditions imposed by a direction for conditional registration.

When a complaint is made to the GMC against a doctor in the UK, the GMC investigation committee decides on a referral or not, for adjudication of the doctor’s Fitness to Practice. If there is evidence of serious misconduct, then the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) can erase the doctor from the Medical Register.

Serious misconduct for dishonesty is one that can lead to erasure from the Medical Register. Against a professional, like a doctor, this is a very serious allegation. In a number of recent appeal cases under Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 as amended, some High Court judges, for example, Singh J [Uddin v GMC [2012] EWHC 2669 (Admin)] (1) found flawed reasoning on five counts of dishonesty and suggested that the GMC panel showed “a fundamentally flawed understanding of the concept of dishonesty.

Others, for example, Collins J [Onwude v GMC 2017, EWHC 601 (Admin)](2) have suggested that these ‘allegations of dishonesty are as close to nonsense as it is possible’.

This systematic review aims to assess the allegations concerning dishonesty and erasure from the Medical Register after the 2002 amendment to the GMC Medical Act 1983 against a background of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority statement on dishonesty and what the courts have made clear, that the standard of honesty required for solicitors is that they may be "trusted to the ends of the earth" [Bolton v Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32](3). However, a solicitor and at least, a Barrister advises the GMC on the filing of the allegation of dishonesty. The Code of Conduct for lawyers, for both solicitors and Barristers is precise in filing an allegation of dishonesty.

Secondly, this systematic review will look at the grounds for appeal, and thirdly the decisions after an appeal on cases of proven dishonesty at the GMC by its independent adjudication arm, the Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service (MPTS).

The starting point is the concept of dishonesty and its influence on a professional’s career. When the General Medical Council is unhappy with the decision of its own adjudication arm, the MPTS, the Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC has the statutory right to appeal to the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In one such judgment delivered on 24 November 2003, Lord Hoffmann stated at 14 that ‘It is a fundamental principle of fairness that a charge of dishonesty should be unambiguously formulated and adequately particularized [Salha v General Medical Council [2003] UKPC 80](4).

It is easy to confuse the allegation that a doctor was not honest at regulatory hearings meant dishonesty. However, in law, this concept has been dismissed. The courts have made clear that the standard of honesty required for solicitors is that they may be "trusted to the ends of the earth" [Bolton v Law Society (1993) EWCA Civ 32](3).

Yet lawyers registered by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and the Bar Council continue to file allegations of dishonesty for the GMC despite their knowledge of Bolton v Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32 (3).

This systematic review looked to see whether when a doctor was accused of dishonesty, an unfairness had occurred if the allegation of dishonesty was alleged, whether it was always pleaded and whether the fundamental principle of fairness that a charge of dishonesty should be “unambiguously formulated and adequately particularised” was followed.

Methods

Literature search strategy: Search Terms

Stage 1 search terms: “misconduct”, “serious misconduct”, “serious professional misconduct”, “dishonesty”, “General Medical Council”, “GMC” and “doctors”.

Stage 2 search terms: Boolean terms “misconduct” and “GMC”; “serious misconduct” and “GMC”; “serious professional misconduct” and “GMC”; “misconduct” and “General Medical Council”; “serious misconduct” and “GMC”; “serious professional misconduct” and “GMC”; “Doctors and dishonesty”; “Dishonesty” and “GMC”; “Dishonesty” and “General Medical Council”; “Misconduct” and “General Medical Council” and “Doctors”; “Dishonesty” and “General Medical Council” and “Doctors”.

Results of Boolean Search terms

    A.   Dishonesty, General Medical Council, Doctors:                     233
B.   Search for serious misconduct within these 233.                     45
C.  Serious misconduct, General Medical Council, Doctors:          99
D.  Search for Dishonesty within these 99:                                     45

The final Boolean searches resulted in:

1. 15 eligible High Court Appeals for Erasure from the Medical Register including two eligible Court of Appeal cases from hand searches from High Court precedent judgments and outcomes.

2. 15 ineligible High Court appeals for suspension from the Medical Register.

3. 5 ineligible appeals: Non-Section 40 appeals by doctors which include two Judicial Reviews, two UK Privy Council appeals, and one case before 2002.

4. 5 ineligible appeals: non-doctors appeals.

Search engines

The legal search engines explored were: JustCite, Welts, Lexis Library, Lawtel, and Law J Library (HeinOnline).

1.  JustCite is reputed to combine most legal searches, a one-stop shop.

2.  Westlaw is a popular search engine employed by lawyers.

Comparison of Results from Legal Search Engines [Table 1]

"Dishonesty" "General Medical Council" and “Doctors"

Then search for 'serious misconduct' within [A]

Hand searching of [A] and ‘misconduct’ in Lawtel or “ serious misconduct” in Westlaw.

 Choice of Legal Search Engines

 1. Westlaw produced the most (45 cases) from the search of “serious misconduct” within the search of “dishonesty” and “General Medical Council” and “doctors”.

 2. Lawtel, the second highest scorer of [B] has some cases not listed in Westlaw. The twenty-three cases resulted from hand searches.

 3. JustCite: One search of all Anglia University law databases including Westlaw, Lexis Library, Lawtel and Westlaw: Full texts of all UK cases since 1891.

  Lawtel: Current Awareness Services. Case summaries since 1980.

  Lexis Library: Full-Text UK legislation from 1267.

 4.  HeinOnline (Law J Library): Comprehensive international law library.

 

Table 1

Comparison of Legal Search Engines

	[A]	[B]	[C]
JustCite	0	0	0
Westlaw	233	45	15
Lexis Library	508	8	0
Lawtel	63	18	23
Law J Library	207	7	0
Total	1,011	78	38

Results of Boolean Search terms

[A] Dishonesty, General Medical Council, Doctors.
[B] Search for Serious misconduct, General Medical Council, Doctors within [A]
[C] Search for Dishonesty within [B]

Method of Dealing with Duplicate Publications

One of the duplicate publications was deleted since the data was the same.

 

Data Analysis

These were individual cases in case law. As they occurred in open court, there was no risk of bias in reporting or variability in reporting.

  

Criteria in Study Inclusion and Exclusion

1.  All cases were section 40 Appeals to the High Court in England and Wales [EWHC].

2.  Four cases were not included because they occurred in 2002 before the Medical Act 1983 was amended in 2002.

          They were all assessed by the Privy Council:

                    A] Al-Fallouji v GMC [PC (UK) No 87 of 2002], 20 March 2003.

              B] Patel v GMC [PC (UK) No 48 of 2002], 17 February 2003.

              C] Singh v GMC [PC (UK) No 53 of 2002], 17 February 2003.

              D] Misra v GMC [PC (UK) No 43 of 2002], 22 January 2003.

Results of Section 40 Appeals to the High Court

Represented doctors                             24 [7 successful Appeals and 17 failed appeals].  
Unrepresented doctors                          12 [1 successful appeal and 11 failed appeals].
Total                                                     36 [8 successful appeal + 28 failed appeals]

 

Table 2

The Outcome of Section 40 Appeals for Dishonesty for Represented and Unrepresented Erased Doctors

Successful Section 40 Appeals for Dishonesty	Success Rate
Successful Dishonesty Appeal for Represented Doctors	7/24 (29%)
Successful Dishonesty Appeal for Unrepresented Doctors	1/12 (8.3%)
Total	8/36 (22%)
Failed Section 40 Appeals for Dishonesty	Failure Rate
Failed Dishonesty Appeal for Represented Doctors	17/24 (71%)
Failed Dishonesty Appeal for Unrepresented Doctors	11/12 (92%)
Total	28/36 (78%)

 

When a doctor is represented, their chance of success at a Section 40 of the Medical
Act 1983 is 29% (7/24) (Table 2). For these doctors, the commonest grounds for a Section
40 Appeal were (Table 3):

1.  Disproportionate sanction of erasure                 37.5%  (9/24)

2.  Unfairness from facts that were wrong               37.5%  (9/24)

3.  Adjournment Request by Represented doctors   4.0%  (1/24)

 

When a doctor is unrepresented, their chance of success at a Section 40 of the Medical
Act 1983 is 8.3% (1/12) (Table 2).For these doctors, the commonest grounds for a
Section 40 Appeal were (Table 3):

                      1. Disproportionate sanction of erasure                    33.0%  (4/12)
                      2. Unfairness from facts that were wrong                  58.3% (7/12)
                        3. Adjournment Request by Unrepresented doctors  4.0% (2/12)

Established Principle if Dishonesty is Alleged:

The established requirement for ‘Fairness by Unambiguously Formulated and Adequately Particularized Allegation’ was assessed. With two doctors accused of dishonesty (2/36), these allegations were not unambiguously formulated and adequately particularized. In Chauhan v GMC [2010] EWHC 2093, when this principle of fairness was not followed, the appeal was allowed because of unfairness and procedural irregularity. However, in a similar case of dishonesty, the appeal was not  allowed [Sheill v GMC [2008] EWHC 2967].

Conclusions

This systematic review, based on the claimant's Right of Appeal, pursuant to Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 is governed by CPR Part 52. Rule2.11.3 which provides that ‘The Appeal Court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was either (a) wrong or (b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.

For all doctors, both represented and unrepresented doctors, the success rate of a Section 40 Appeal is 22%. Most doctors are represented when they apply for a Section 40 Appeal.

Compared to unrepresented doctors appealing with Section 40 Appeal, the commonest grounds for appeal were similarly disproportionate sanctions of erasure (37.5% (9/24) versus 33.3% (4/12)), unfairness from facts that were wrong (37.5% (9/24) versus 17% (2/12)), and represented doctors asking for an adjournment 4% (1/24) versus 8% (1/12)) for unrepresented doctors.

With regards to dishonesty at Regulatory hearings like the MPTS and erasure from the Medical Register, this systematic review shows that a doctor should be represented at a Section 40 appeal to the High Court because 29% are successful compared to unrepresented doctors acting as litigants in person (8.3%). Indeed, the author was the only unrepresented successful doctor, among 12 such doctors, a ratio of success more than three and half times.

There is an inconsistency in judicial decisions of Section 40 Appeals. In one High Court decision, the appeal failed where established principles were breached, that an allegation of ‘you were not honest’ meant dishonesty. The Court of Appeal will receive Appeals where the High Court is wrong or unjust as prescribed in CPR Part 52. Rule 52.11.3. Doctors must be prepared to be involved because your lawyer and Defense Union might just support the establishment and not really be on your side.

You should remember that the allegation of Dishonesty must be adequately particularized and unambiguously pleaded [Salha v General Medical Council [2003] UKPC 80](4).

The usual strategy of the GMC is to make up the charge of Dishonesty after the investigation stage, knowing that the doctor will not know the difference between an allegation and a charge, and Defense lawyers will go along for a simple life and further contracts for representation in the medico-legal field. It really does not matter what happens to you.

Doctors need to have skin in the game. They can easily do it since they arew dealing with solicitor and Barristers who are famous because doctors don’t think that they are superior in intellect and can easily manage the Procedural Rules, The Common Law, the Statutory Law, and the Precedent Law. We must be vigilant as some previously successful doctors can help other colleagues.

Litigants in person are often broken and often lacking in funds. One option is to accept the decision of the GMC and look for an alternative career. The other option is to ask for help from previously successful doctors at Section 40 Appeals against the GMC and at remitted hearings.

Table 3  

  Represented Doctors at Section 40 Appeal of Dishonesty

	Legal Authority	Outcome
1	Lawrance v GMC [2015] EWHC 586 (Admin), Collins J	Appeal allowed
2	Naheed v GMC [2011] EWHC 2022 (Admin)	Appeal fails
3	Biswas v GMC [2003] EWHC 2343 (Admin), Wall J	Appeal fails
4	Yassin v GMC [2015] EWHC 2955 (Admin), Cranston J	Appeal fails
5	Allam v GMC [2015] EWHC 854 (Admin), Morgan J	Appeal fails
6	Visvardis v GMC [2014] EWHC 4531, Bird J	Appeal allowed
7	Qureshi v GMC [2015] EWHC 3729 (Admin), King J	Appeal allowed
8	Nicholas-Pillai v GMC [2015] EWHC 305 (Admin) Laing J	Appeal fails
9	Fernando v GMC [2014] EWHC 1664, Patterson J	Appeal fails
10	Adeogba v GMC [2014] EWHC 3872 (Admin), Wood J	Appeal allowed
11	Brew v GMC [2014] EWHC 2927 (Admin), Gosnell J	Appeal fails
12	Hussain v GMC [2013] EWHC 3865 (Admin), Bird J	Appeal fails
13	Vaghela v GMC [2013] EWHC 1594 (Admin), Sales J	Appeal fails
14	Lawrence v GMC [2012] EWHC 464 (Admin), Stadlen J	Appeal allowed
15	Ayyub v GMC [2012] EWHC 797 (Admin), Eady J	Appeal fails
16	Belal v GMC [2011] EWHC 2859 (Admin), Lloyd-Jones J	Appeal fails
17	Martin v GMC [2011] EWHC 3204 (Admin), Land J	Appeal fails
18	Chauhan v GMC [2010] EWHC 2093 (Admin), King J	Appeal allowed
19	Atkinson v GMC [2009] EWHC 3636 (Admin), Blake J	Appeal fails
20	Karwal v GMC [2011] EWHC 826 (Admin), Rafferty J	Appeal fails
21	Sheill v GMC [2008] EWHC 2967 (Admin), Foskett J	Appeal fails
22	Selvarajan v GMC [2008] EWHC 182 (Admin), Blake J	Appeal fails
23	Sanusi v GMC [2018] EWHC 1388 (Admin), Kerr J	Appeal fails
24	Uddin v GMC [2012] EWHC 2669 Admin Singh J	Appeal allowed

 

Table 4
Unrepresented Doctors at Section 40 Appeal of Dishonesty

	Legal Authority	Outcome
1	Onwude v GMC [2017] EWHC 601 (Admin) Collins J.	Appeal Allowed
2	Johnson-Ogbuneke v GMC [2016] EWHC 1474 (Admin), Irwin J	Appeal fails
3	Loufti v GMC [2016] EWHC 1620 (Admin) Cranston J	Appeal fails
4	Ariyanayagam v GMC [2016] EWHC 3848 (Admin), Garnham J	Appeal fails
5	Oluwashegun v GMC [2015] EWHC 2146 (Admin), Silber J	Appeal fails
6	Khan v GMC [2015] EWHC 301 (Admin) Mostyn J	Appeal fails
7	Nwogbo v GMC [2012] EWHC 2666 (Admin) Davies J	Appeal fails
8	Hosny v GMC [2012] EWHC 2665 (Admin) Stewart J	Appeal fails
9	Nooh v GMC [2011] EWHC 359 (Admin) Supperstone J	Appeal fails
10	Baldar v GMC [2007] EWHC 2054 (Admin) Collins J	Appeal fails
11	Barnett v GMC [2015] EWHC 4306 (Admin) Kerr J	Appeal fails
12	Abbas v General Medical Council [2017] EWHC 51 (Admin), Blake J	Appeal fails

 

 Table 5

Grounds for Appeal for Represented Doctors

	Case	Outcome	Unfairness	Procedural Impropriety	Panels Determination on Sanction of Erasure
1	Lawrance v GMC [2015] EWHC (Admin) 586 Collins J	Allowed	Yes	Yes	·        Hearing proceeded in absence of the Doctor
2	Naheed v GMC [2011] EWCH 2022 Parker J	Fails	-	-	·        Nothing short of erasure is likely to be appropriate
3	Biswas v GMC [2003] EWHC 2343 Wall J	Fails	-	-	·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure
4	Yassin v GMC [2015] EWHC 2955 Cranston J	Fails	-	-	·        Insufficient particularization of charges ·        Findings of dishonesty ·        New medical evidence
5	Allam v GMC [2015] EWHC 854 Morgan J	Fails	--	--	·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure
6	Visvardis v GMC [2014] EWHC 4531 Bird J	Allowed	-	Yes	·        Hearing in absence of Doctor
7	Qureshi v GMC [2015] EWHC 3729 King J	Allowed	Yes	Yes	·        Challenge to findings of fact successful ·        Assault set aside by a Judge
8	Nicholas-Pillai v GMC [2015] EWHC 305 Laing J	Fails	-	-	·        Lack of preparation when still represented ·        Incompetent representation ·        Not enough time to prepare to cross-examine two witnesses after the Counsel
9	Fernando v GMC [2014] EWHC 1664 Patterson J	Fails	-	-	·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure
10	Adeogba v GMC [2014] EWHC 3872  Wood J	Allowed	-	Yes	·        Hearing in absence of Doctor
11	Brew v GMC [2014] EWHC 2927 Gosnell J	Fails	-	-	·        Incompetent representation. ·        Sanction of erasure was wrong ·        Disproportionate sanction of Erasure
12	Hussain v GMC [2013] EWHC 3865 Bird J	Fails	-	-	·        Panel erred in the assessment of the evidence in relation to dishonesty ·        Panel wrongly applied the rules to the determination of dishonesty.
13	Vaghela v GMC [2013] EWHC 1594 Sales J	Fails	--	-	·        Panel’s determination on facts ·        Panel’s determination on impairment ·        Panel’s determination on erasure
14	Lawrence v GMC [2012] EWHC 464 Stadlen J	Allowed	-	-	·        Self-avowed expertise instead of expert evidence ·        Panel Chairman gave Inadequate reasons
15	Ayyub v GMC [2012] EWHC 797 Eady J	Fails	-	-	·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure
16	Belal v GMC [2011] EWHC 2859 Lloyd-Jones J	Fails	-	-	·        Panel’s determination on facts ·        Panel’s determination on impairment ·        Panels determination on erasure.
17	Martin v GMC [2011] EWHC 3204 Land J	Fails	-	-	·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure
18	Chauhan v GMC [2010] EWHC 2093 King J	Allowed	Yes	YES	Panel did not follow established principles in: ·         Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 ·        Strouthos v London Underground Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 402 ·        Farag v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 2667 ·        El-Baroudy v General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2894 ·        Salha v GMC [2003] UKPC 80 The Privy Council observed (at [14]) that “it is a fundamental principle of fa charge of dishonesty should be unambiguously formulated and adequately particularised.
19	Atkinson v GMC [2009] EWHC 3636 Blake J	Fails	-	-	·        Dishonesty should not always lead to a sanction of erasure
20	Karwal v GMC [2011] EWHC 826 Rafferty J	Fails	-	-	·        Panel permitted the GMC, without warning or notice, to present a case of l Panel was not on the facts entitled to find lack of insight; ·        The finding of impairment was not open to the Panel. ·        It was not a proper finding and/or against the weight of the evidence.
21	Sheill v GMC [2008] EWHC 2967 Foskett J	Fails	Yes	-	·        The Privy Council observed (at [14]) that “it is a fundamental principle of fa charge of dishonesty should be unambiguously formulated and adequately ·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure
22	Selvarajan v GMC [2008] EWHC 182 Blake J	Fails	Yes	-	·        The submissions of the GMC and the advice of the panel were plainly wro ·        Unreasonable delay in prosecuting were decision for Article 6 purposes ·        Panel misdirected on mitigating factors ·        Unreasonable delay.
23	Sanusi v GMC [2018] EWHC 1388 Kerr J	Fails	Yes	Yes	·   Voluntarily absents himself · Mitigating evidence not passed from GMC to MPTS   ·        Panel failed to adjourn at the sanctions stage of sanctions   ·        Judge: The GMC had a duty to hand over the documents to the tribunal ·        Judge: The GMC counsel had a duty to pass on information to the tribunal as a Duty of Candor in ex-parte situations in public law proceedings ·        Judge: The chairman should have been a legally qualified person
24	Uddin v GMC [2012] EWHC 2669 Singh J	Allowed	Yes	-	Errors of fact Judge: Wrong test - The Two-stage Ghosh Test Judge: Panel had a fundamentally flawed understanding of the concept of Judge: No reasons given for some Panel decisions Judge: Panel does not in th final document what it regarded as relevant an Judge: The final document just records in a very general way that the pan had regard to the document. Judge: Defects in Panel’s reasoning which go the reasoning it deployed. ·        Disproportionate sanction on erasure

 

Table 6
Grounds for Appeal for Unrepresented Doctors

	Case	Outcome	Unfairness	Procedural Impropriety	Panel’s Determination on Sanction of Erasure
1	Onwude v GMC [2017] EWHC 601 (Admin) Collins J	Allowed	Yes	-	·        Wrong on the facts and wrong on the decision of erasure. ·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure.
2	Johnson-Ogbuneke v GMC [2016]   EWHC 1474 (Admin), Irwin J	Fails	Yes	Yes	Unfairness from: ·        Trial bundle arrived the day before trial, denied late application. ·        Evidence admitted from a dead witness who could not be cross-examined.
3	Loufti v GMC [2016] EWHC 1620 (Admin) Cranston J	Fails	Yes	-	·        Challenge of findings of fact ·        Challenge of panel’s expert
4	Ariyanayagam v GMC [2016] EWHC 3848 Garnham J	Fails	Yes	-	·        Complaint inadequately placed. ·        The panel did not explain the reasons for accepting the inadequate complaint.
5	Oluwashegun v GMC [2015] EWHC  2146 (Admin) Silber J	Fails	-	-	·        Not bound by IOT conditions during the application process. ·        Panel should not have accepted two witnesses. ·        Panel should have accepted her evidence. ·        Panel should not have reached a decision of impairment. ·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure.
6	Khan v GMC [2015] EWHC 301 Mostyn J	Fails	-	-	·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure
7	Nwogbo v GMC [2012] EWHC 2666 HHJ Davies	Partly allowed	Yes	-	·        Judge: Failure to put an allegation of dishonesty to the appellant to answer. ·        Judge: In order to find someone guilty of dishonesty, the panel must give reasons that it has approached the issue on the correct basis and that it has addressed, fairly shortly, the substance of the defenses put forward ·        Panel have nonetheless found him to be dishonest.’
8	Hosny v GMC [2012] EWHC 2665 HHJ Stewart QC	Fails	-	-	·        Wrong determination on impairment. ·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure.
9	Nooh v GMC [2011] EWHC 359 Supperstone J	Fails	-	-	·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure.
10	Baldar v GMC [2007] EWHC 2054 Collins J	Fails	-	-	·        Disproportionate sanction of erasure.
11	Barnett v GMC [2015] EWHS 4306 Kerr J	Fails	-	-	An adjournment was denied for ·        Appellant claimed he was vulnerable and at risk of self-harm ·        Need adjournment to collect evidence from Poland. ·        Disproportionate sanction on the erasure.
12	Abbas v GMC [2017] EWHC 51 Blake J	Fails	-	-	·        Panel was wrong to deny the request to adjourn to look for counsel. ·        Panel was wrong to deny a request to adjourn to get more documents. ·        Panel was wrong to deny the instruction of the expert. ·        Cross-examination of GMC expert cut short.

 

 References

1.     Uddin v GMC [2012] EWHC 2669 Admin.

2.      Onwude v GMC [2017] EWHC 601 (Admin).

3.     Bolton v Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32.

4.     Salha v. General Medical Council [2003] UKPC 80.

5.     Lawrance v GMC [2015] EWHC 586 (Admin).

6.     Naheed v GMC [2011] EWHC 2022 (Admin).

7.     Biswas v GMC [2003] EWHC 2343 (Admin).

8.     Yassin v GMC [2015] EWHC 2955 (Admin).

9.     Allam v GMC [2015] EWHC 854 (Admin).

10. Visvardis v GMC [2014] EWHC 4531 (Admin).

11. Qureshi v GMC [2015] EWHC 3729 (Admin).

12. Nicholas-Pillai v GMC [2015] EWHC 305 (Admin).

13. Fernando v GMC [2014] EWHC 1664 (Admin).

14. Adeogba v GMC [2014] EWHC 3872 (Admin).

15. Brew v GMC [2014] EWHC 2927 (Admin).

16. Hussain v GMC [2013] EWHC 3865 (Admin).

17. Vaghela v GMC [2013] EWHC 1594 (Admin).

18. Lawrence v GMC [2012] EWHC 464 (Admin).

19. Ayyub v GMC [2012] EWHC 797 (Admin).

20. Belal v GMC [2011] EWHC 2859 (Admin).

21. Martin v GMC [2011] EWHC 3204 (Admin).

22. Chauhan v GMC [2010] EWHC 2093 (Admin).

23. Atkinson v GMC [2009] EWHC 3636 (Admin).

24. Karwal v GMC [2011] EWHC 826 (Admin).

25. Sheill v GMC [2008] EWHC 2967 (Admin)

26. Selvarajan v GMC [2008] EWHC 182 (Admin).

27. Sanusi v GMC [2018] EWHC 1388 (Admin).

28.  Johnson-Ogbuneke v GMC [2016] EWHC 1474 (Admin).

29. Loufti v GMC [2016] EWHC 1620 (Admin).

30. Ariyanayagam v GMC [2016] EWHC 3848 (Admin).

31. Oluwashegun v GMC [2015] EWHC 2146 (Admin)

32. Khan v GMC [2015] EWHC 301 (Admin).

33. Nwogbo v GMC [2012] EWHC 2666 (Admin).

34. Hosny v GMC [2012] EWHC 2665 (Admin).

35. Nooh v GMC [2011] EWHC 359 (Admin).

36. Baldar v GMC [2007] EWHC 2054 (Admin).

37. Barnett v GMC [2015] EWHC 4306 (Admin).

38. Abbas v GMC [2017] EWHC 51 (Admin).

 

 

ICMJE DISCLOSURE FORM
Date:	25/2/2023
Your Name:	JOSEPH ONWUDE
Manuscript Title:	A Systematic Review of Section 40 Statutory Appeals under The Medical Act 1983 against the General Medical Council on decisions to Erase a doctor from the UK Medical Register for Dishonesty from 2003-2017.
Manuscript Number (if known):	BMJ OPEN……

 

 

 

			Name all entities with whom you have this relationship or indicate none (add rows as needed)	Specifications/Comments (e.g., if payments were made to you or to your institution)
Time frame: Since the initial planning of the work
1	All support for the present manuscript (e.g., funding, provision of study materials, medical writing, article processing charges, etc.) No time limit for this item.		X     None                                                Click the tab key to add additional rows.
Time frame: past 36 months
2		Grants or contracts from any entity (if not indicated in item #1 above).	X      None
3		Royalties or licenses	X      None
4		Consulting fees	X      None
5		Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events	X      None
6		Payment for expert testimony	X      None
7		Support for attending meetings and/or travel	X      None
8		Patents planned, issued or pending	X      None
9		Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board	X      None
10		Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid	X      None
11		Stock or stock options	X      None
12		Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services	X            None
13		Other financial or non-financial interests	☒     None
Please place an “X” next to the following statement to indicate your agreement:
X		I certify that I have answered every question and have not altered the wording of any of the questions on this form.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Declaration of Competing interests

1.Their associations with commercial entities that provided support for the work reported in the submitted manuscript

There are no commercial entities: I am a private practitioner.

2. Their associations with commercial entities that could be viewed as having an interest in the general area of the submitted manuscript

There are no commercial entities: I am a private practitioner.

3.Any similar financial associations involving their spouse or their children under 18 years of age.

NONE

4. Non-financial associations that may be relevant to the submitted manuscript.

NONE