The decision in GMC, Petitioner [2026] CSOH 75, provides a helpful reminder of the factors to be considered in extending an interim order – specifically where regulatory investigations proceed following discontinuation of criminal proceedings.

The doctor had been charged with possession of indecent images (para 27). An interim order for conditions had been imposed in 2024. On 18/2/26, the IOT reviewed it and continued it [3].

On 16/1/26 criminal proceedings concluded due to there being no evidence of the respondent using or being in possession of the device upon which the images had been found or being able to access the images (para 27; 19).

The GMC sought an extension submitting that ‘it must still assess whether the respondent can return to unrestricted practice while the fitness to practise investigation remains current’ [4].

The Court observed:

• ’It is understandable that the petitioner awaited the outcome of the summary criminal proceedings before progressing its own investigation’ (para 29)
• ’The petitioner is correct to observe that criminal proceedings and regulatory action serve different purposes; case examiners may have different information, different evidential rules and a different standard of proof..’
• ’…the [GMC] bears the onus of satisfying the court that the criteria for extension are met. The court can take into account the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case has not been concluded and the prejudice to the practitioner if an interim order is continued [30]

It concluded:

• ‘the [GMC] fails to address the available evidence or lack thereof. The [GMC] asserts that the order is necessary for the protection of the public but does not identify any evidence in support of that nor realistically how that might be obtained standing the conclusion of criminal proceeding…[30]’.
• ‘the [GMC] has not established why the order is in the public interest… Again, the petitioner proceeds in general terms that possession by a medical practitioner of indecent images of children engages the public interest. The petitioner does not identify why that is so…where criminal proceedings have concluded [31]’.
• ‘…The [GMC have] known since 20 January 2026 of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings…and has been unable to demonstrate any urgency or focus in its investigation…’ [32]
• ‘…I am not satisfied that the order is necessary for the protection of the public and/or in the public interest nor that the order is proportionate’ [33].