The recent case of GMC v Rezyk (18 December) was an appeal against sanction by the GMC following a decision by MPTS at the sanction stage to take no action.
The case had involved inappropriate and sexually motivated conduct and sexual harassment of two female colleagues.
Whilst all allegations had been admitted and found proved, and impairment established (on public interest grounds only), the tribunal had determined that there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ which justified the taking of ‘no action’.
The tribunal had concluded that:
– the ‘isolated environment’ that the doctor had endured during the Covid 19 pandemic were exceptional and ‘[did] not consider that [the doctor] would have behaved as has been found proved had these exceptional circumstances not arisen’ (see judgment para 17).
– Further, it concluded that the finding of impairment ‘made solely on public interest grounds, represents a mark on his registration which will inform and satisfy the public…”
The GMC challenged a number of aspects including that the tribunals consideration of the public interest was ‘ inadequate’ (para 52) and that the tribunal ‘arrived at a premature conclusion that suspension would not be appropriate…’ (para 54). The GMC further submitted that the Tribunal had erred in concluding that there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ (para 77).
The Court ‘accepted’ that consideration of aggravating factors had been inadequate (para 63) and that the public interest was not adequately addressed (para 67).
The Court also concluded that the doctors experience during Covid were not ‘unusual, special or uncommon’ (para 95-100) and that the Tribunal had erred in concluding there were ‘exceptional circumstances.
However, despite the GMC submitting that the appropriate sanction was one of suspension and maintaining that conditions were not appropriate, the Court concluded that an order of conditions for 12 months was appropriate (para 131-135) and stated:
– “…the Tribunal failed to give any or any sufficient consideration to the possibility that [the doctor’s] conduct stemmed from deep seated inappropriate attitudes towards women, including colleagues, which could benefit from further remedial work, under supervision…”.
– “…Such an order would also meet the public interest in training and retaining competent doctors. The other sanctions proposed – no further action or suspension – do not provide for any remediation”.
This judgment will certainly be of interest to regulators and healthcare professional alike– it is well worth a read – a copy of the judgement can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/3228.html