Allegations of Dishonesty in Expert Reports – Cleared After a MPTS Hearing

The Client

We were instructed to represent an NHS Consultant referred to the GMC over allegations of dishonesty in the preparation of medico-legal reports arising from minor road traffic accidents.

The Complaint

The allegations were severe. He was accused of operating a “report writing factory” with a consultation process likened to a “cattle market,” and of fabricating details in a patient’s report, including claiming to have undertaken physical examinations that were never performed. If proven, these allegations would have amounted to dishonesty at the highest level and would have ended his career.

Our Defence Strategy and Work

From the outset, we recognised that this case required a meticulous, forensic defence. Over many months of preparation, culminating in a lengthy contested hearing, we undertook a detailed analysis of the GMC’s evidence, reviewing hundreds of pages of patient records, medico-legal reports, and disclosure material to identify inconsistencies, evidential gaps, and points of vulnerability within the case.

We worked closely with our client to prepare comprehensive witness evidence that addressed each allegation directly and with precision. This was supported by statements from colleagues and administrative staff, providing essential context to the consultation process and countering the GMC’s interpretation of events.

A central strand of the defence involved dismantling the GMC’s case theory. We demonstrated that the characterisation of the practice as a “report writing factory” or “cattle market” was exaggerated, anecdotal, and critically, unsupported by independent or objective evidence.

We also prepared detailed skeleton arguments on dishonesty, misconduct, and impairment, emphasising that findings of dishonesty require cogent and reliable evidence, not inference, or suspicion.

At the hearing itself, we subjected the GMC’s witnesses to careful and targeted cross-examination, exposing the weaknesses in their evidence and reinforcing our client’s credibility through consistent, measured testimony.

MPTS Hearing Outcome

Following a fully contested hearing, the Tribunal rejected the central allegation of dishonesty in its entirety and accepted that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired. It declined to impose even a warning, recognising that while there may have been isolated shortcomings, they did not undermine public confidence or give rise to any ongoing concern about the doctor’s practice.

The result was complete professional vindication. Our client was able to continue practising without restriction, with his integrity firmly upheld.

Comment from Jared McNally

“Our client faced allegations of dishonesty that, if proven, would have destroyed his career. By dismantling the GMC’s case, exposing exaggeration, and presenting a clear, consistent defence, we ensured all dishonesty allegations were rejected. The Tribunal agreed his fitness to practise was not impaired and declined to impose any warning. His reputation remains intact, and he continues to practise freely.

Clifford Johnston & Co is a leading defence firm in Criminal and Professional Disciplinary Law, based in Manchester and representing clients across England and Wales on a privately funded basis. We provide strategic advice and robust advocacy when your professional career is under threat due to GMC Investigations or the risk of GMC Warnings being issued.