The recent judgment of GMC v Ahmed [25 Feb], provides a helpful reminder of the principles to be applied in an appeal against sanction including where allegations relate to sexually motivated conduct.

The case had concerned both clinical aspects as well as elements relating to sexually motivated conduct towards a patient. The General Medical Council sought to appeal (under s40A) against the decision to impose only a two-month suspension order without the need for a review – it was of the view that this was insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. The GMC submitted that the MPT failed to fully explain its decision not to order a review and also gave undue weight to the interim order that had previously been imposed.

In dismissing the General Medical Council’s appeal, the Court determined that the MPT gave sufficient reasons for departing from the sanction guidance (para 80). It further concluded that it was ‘clear’(citing the well-known case of Kamberova v Nursing and Midwifery Council) that the committee was entitled to take account of the earlier interim suspension order ‘when making its multi-factorial decision as to the appropriate sanction’ (para 91-92). It concluded that whilst a fuller explanation for not directing a review would have been ‘better’ (para 102) the explanation provided was sufficient (‘it considered that a review would serve no useful purpose’ (para 101)).

This judgment is well worth a read – a copy can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/403.html