GDC “Seeking Clarity" - Yet Another Expensive Appeal
- Details
- Published: Tuesday, 09 January 2024 09:24
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 1936
Registrants may be a little alarmed to read the GDC’s latest addition to the ‘News’ section of their website. Once again, the Council is “Seeking clarity". This is GDC speak for another appeal against a Court decision that has dared to challenge the GDC.
It will be funded, naturally, by registrants. This time it is regarding suspension orders. Just over a year ago the GDC decided to “seek clarity” over NHS regulations by launching their catastrophic attempt to overturn the High Court quashing of their Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) findings. This was the Fitness to Practice decision to find a registrant dishonest in relation to charging private ‘top-up’ fees for NHS dental care in England, specifically in the Williams case.
Just over a year later the GDC have returned to their quest for clarity, and again it is in regard to a court decision that has not gone their way. To quote the GDC: “In a recent High Court judgment (Aga v GDC [2023] EWHC 3208 (Admin)), the judge dismissed the registrant’s appeal against a substantive suspension order but also allowed a new ground of appeal during the course of the hearing.”
The GDC are quite clear that they think the court has got things wrong, and indicate that they have no intention of being influenced by a mere court judgement. Doubling down, the GDC said: “We have advised panels that they should continue to follow current guidance until the appeal is heard, because we are of the view that the interpretation of the statutory regime in the Aga v GDC judgment is incorrect.”
It is important to note that Judge Ritchie did not dispute that the registrant should be suspended for his grossly unacceptable behaviour. What the Judge did consider unreasonable, was the effective ‘back door’ increase of his given punishment. This is because the GDC does not count the interim suspension period, towards the substantive period of suspension set by the PCC. Judge Ritchie observed that in contrast, in the criminal judicial process, for appeals by convicted prisoners to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), the time spent in custody pending appeal normally does count as part of the sentence.
The GDC of course has a reputation for prolonged investigations, and has been criticised for this by its own regulator, in report after report. As a result actual suspension times may greatly exceed those set out by the PCC.
The Judge’s comments would suggest that this doubling up, acts as a deterrent against appealing GDC FTP decisions: “If it is indeed the case that where a doctor, whose immediate suspension under section 38(1) has been ordered and who appeals to the High Court against the order for suspension imposed by the Fitness to Practise Panel, may be adding several months (or in this case, because of the unfortunate length of time it has taken to list the case, a year) to the period of suspension ordered by the Panel, this ought to be made widely known.”
The GDC suggest that they are following a pattern used by other medical regulators, but after considering this, Justice Ritchie provides a more nuanced view.
With a nod to their image the GDC managed to acknowledge that FTP is “difficult and stressful,” before falling back to their comfort zone with excuses about “complex and outdated legislation.”
A particular worrying aspect of this is that it confirms the GDC’s reluctance to engage with any criticism, let alone with being held to account for its actions. There is an embedded pattern of behaviour that deflects criticism, fails to take ownership of its errors, all coming from an organisation whose primary objective appears to be maintaining their own power and protecting themselves.
Viewers of Mr Bates vs The Post Office, may spot some uncomfortable similarities. [See this blog for that comparison]
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report