Within the recent judgment of MXM v GMC (6 April), the Applicant, a doctor was successful in terminating an interim order for suspension under s.41A(10).  

The interim order had been imposed on public protection and public interest grounds.

The interim order had been imposed following allegations that the doctor (a GP) had had a sexual relationship with a patient, aspects of which he had filmed.

– however whilst the patient was a registered patient at the practice, she had only had a single appointment with the doctor during the course of the ‘affair‘ and had not seen the doctor as a patient for 3 years prior to this (paragraph 42-43).

It was notable that whilst an interim order for suspension had previously been imposed, the GMC had only sought an interim order for conditions at the initial hearing (para 51).

In determining that the evaluation of risk by the IOT had been ‘flawed’ (paragraph 89), the court stated: “A key aspect of the assessment involved considering the nature of the sexual misconduct alleged” (para 90) before observing:

“…In circumstances where the relationship did not arise in the context of a doctor-patient relationship, and there is no allegation of any pattern of sexualised behaviour towards patients, there is no real risk in the period prior to the determination of these fitness to practise proceedings, of the Applicant engaging in the type of behaviour towards a patient (or the partner of a patient) that is the subject of these proceedings”.

In terminating the interim suspension order (para 94-95), the Court however made clear that if it had had the power to impose an interim order for conditions instead, it would have done so on public interest grounds.

The judgment is well worth a read and can be found here:  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/817.html