The flurry of interesting cases from the Administrative Court continues with yesterday’s judgment in the case of GMC v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin) – an appeal by the GMC under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983.

Foster J concluded that the tribunal was wrong in determining that there had been no sexual motivation and that it was ‘clear beyond argument that the intimate touching…was sexual…’ (para 47).

At para 59 the following is also stated: “it does seem to me that pleading “sexual motivation” is unhelpful. Similarly, to look for “sexual gratification” may be misleading and overcomplicating. It is irrelevant to the actions which the GMC would wish to proscribe whether or not the perpetrator was sexually “gratified” at all – whether before, after or during the act in question. Gratification, as with “pursuit of a relationship” are, pace the analysis of Mostyn J in Basson, not helpful in my judgement in promoting the public interests at stake here. These criteria set the bar too high and I respectfully disagree that they represent the law” (paragraph 59).

Again this is well worth a read! A copy of the judgment can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/2518.html