Many enjoy a Xmas blockbuster – and for those that work in professional regulation, this pre-Xmas decision (Aga v GDC 13 December 2023) is the equivalent – at least as far as judgments go!

It provides guidance on the approach taken at sanction and specifically in relation immediate orders to ensure fairness.

It was an appeal against sanction by the Appellant (a dentist) who was suspended by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) for a period of 9 months, and also was made subject to an ‘immediate order’ of suspension.

The purpose of immediate order is to “fill the gap between a PCC’s direction to suspend and the default timing of the coming into effect of the direction to suspend, which otherwise does not bite until the 28 day appeal period is over or the appeal is resolved” (para 27).

-the Court however noted that “A consequence of the imposition of an immediate suspension order is the way in which the Respondent operates it in practice. If a dentist appeals and the appeal takes 4.5 months to be heard, as this one did, the GDC interpret the 9 month suspension direction which “takes effect” when the appeal is dismissed as the full 9 months without any deduction for the suspension already served”. (para 30).

The Court concluded that:

– “such an interpretation breach[ed] the statutory ban on any suspension being over 12 months and is in effect a punishment for appealing which is contrary to established principle…” (para 92)

-“…the GDC’s interpretation of the Sections is unfair …It effectively increases the PCC’s carefully measured and titrated sanction just because he has appealed…” (para 93)

-“…the only correct and lawful way for the PCC to pass a direction for suspension, when they may be going on to consider an immediate suspension order, is to ensure that it is worded so as to credit any time served under any immediate order for suspension against the duration of the direction for suspension”.

-“….It is wrong and unjust to make a direction for suspension and an immediate suspension order which together have the effect of increasing the length of the suspension, beyond the statutory maximum, just because the dentist appeals (para 100)

In setting aside the suspension order, the Court directed that the appellant should only be suspended for ‘a total of 9 months’.

This judgment will be of interest to regulators and healthcare professional alike– it is well worth a read – a copy of the judgment can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/3208.html