CAN A REGULATORY BODY LIKE THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL BE CHALLENGED IN CRIMINAL COURT FOR DISHONESTY AGAINST ITS REGISTRANT?

Joseph Onwude

Retired Gynaecologist, Statistician, and Epidemiologist.51 Whitecroft Works, 69 Furnace Hill, Sheffield S3 7AH, United Kingdom. 

In Bale v GMC [2017] EWHC 804 (admin), Collins J inferred on what the General Medical Council (GMC) understands by a charge of dishonesty. He states that “Of course, if a Tribunal on the facts concludes that something which is denied has taken place, then the question arises as to what should follow from that. There are often factual disputes which may be resolved against a doctor.The Tribunal must be very careful in such circumstances not to regard that as in any way necessarily indicative of dishonesty, because otherwise any denial which was, in the view of the Tribunal in due course, not substantiated could on one view indicate dishonesty by the GMC/MPTS Tribunal”.1

This was the exact situation in Onwude v GMC [2017] EWHC 601 (Admin)2. So much so that Collins J forbade the GMC from repeating that charge against Joseph Onwude. The `GMC did not repeat that allegation.

Dishonesty is a special matter with doctors. Few doctors, if any would like to be accused of dishonesty. This is also a strong matter with the General Medical Council and Medical Practitioners Tribunal Services (MPTS).

Although it is a serious matter with the GMC/MPTS Regulatory practices. His Lordship, Mr. Justice Singh declared that there was flawed reasoning in five counts of dishonesty against a doctor and opined that the GMC/MPTS panel showed “a fundamentally flawed understanding of the concept of dishonesty”.3

There are cogent questions based on two High Court judges who understand what dishonesty actually means2,3. If the GMC does not understand the concept of dishonesty, then it has been short changed by its Principal Legal Adviser and Director of the MPTS, Mr Anthony Omo and the Deputy Legal Adviser, Mr. Jim Percival, with their large team of in-house legal Advisers.

We need a Regulatory body that understands the basic law. There is a simple difference between ‘the Law’, ‘the Regulations’ and the ‘Orders of council’. Doctors are to blame for their dis-interest in their future because we believe in the GMC. But we must challenge the GMC and MPTS now in criminal court.

A dishonest decision by a Regulatory Body like the UK General Medical Council against its registrant who illegally or unlawfully loses all, is not listed in the Table of Offences which are indictable-only offences in the Manual of Guidance (2012), this can be challenged in the Magistrates Court.

References

1. Collins J: Bale v GMC [2017] EWHC 804 (Admin).

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

3. Singh J: Uddin v GMC [2012] EWHC 2669 (Admin) at 58.