Doctor avoids GMC interim suspension after serious allegation referred to MPTS

Clifford Johnston & Co represented a doctor at a GMC Interim Orders Tribunal hearing where the GMC sought interim suspension while a wider fitness to practise investigation continued.

The case arose from serious allegations considered in family court proceedings, including an allegation of rape and allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour. A police investigation had concluded with no further action. There were no concerns about the doctor’s clinical practice.

Following representations, the Tribunal imposed interim conditions of practice rather than interim suspension. The doctor was not suspended from the medical register and remained able to practise, subject to safeguards.

This case demonstrates an important point: serious allegations do not automatically justify interim suspension. At an Interim Orders Tribunal, the focus must be on necessity, risk, proportionality and whether workable conditions can address any legitimate concern while the GMC investigation continues.

The client

We were instructed to represent a doctor facing a GMC Interim Orders Tribunal hearing.

The professional risk was immediate and severe. If the Tribunal imposed interim suspension, the doctor would be prevented from practising medicine while the GMC investigation continued. Fitness to practise investigations can be lengthy and, in some cases, may take years to conclude.

The doctor needed urgent representation focused on the real issue before the Tribunal: whether interim suspension was necessary, or whether no order or conditions would be sufficient and proportionate.

The background to the GMC referral

The GMC case followed concerns referred from safeguarding and family court material.

The concerns related to findings made in family proceedings, including allegations of rape and coercive and controlling behaviour. There had also been a police investigation into serious allegations. That investigation was closed with no further action.

Despite the absence of criminal charges, the GMC referred the case to an Interim Orders Tribunal. The Tribunal was asked to decide whether the doctor’s registration should be restricted on an interim basis while the GMC investigation continued.

The GMC argued that interim suspension was necessary on the grounds of public protection and the public interest.

Its position was that, although the matters arose in a domestic setting, they were sufficiently serious to raise concerns about whether the doctor should be permitted to practise during the investigation.

Why interim suspension was a serious risk

Interim Orders Tribunal hearings are urgent and high-stakes.

Although they do not determine whether allegations are proved, they can decide whether a doctor is able to continue working before the case reaches any final hearing.

A doctor may be removed from practice for months or years before any final finding has been made. The consequences can be professional, financial, reputational and personal.

Where the GMC seeks interim suspension, the defence must be prepared to address risk, necessity, proportionality and whether conditions can manage any legitimate concern.

Our defence strategy

Our primary position was that no interim order was necessary.

We advanced the case that the allegations arose in a private family context, the police investigation had concluded with no further action, and there were no concerns about the doctor’s clinical practice.

We also relied on evidence addressing the doctor’s professional position, employment history, testimonials and the absence of previous fitness to practise concerns.

The defence strategy focused on necessity and proportionality.

Interim orders must not be imposed simply because allegations are serious. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a real risk to the public, whether there is a public interest requiring restriction, and whether any order is necessary after balancing the interests of the doctor and the public.

We submitted that interim suspension was not required where there were no clinical concerns, no previous fitness to practise history and no criminal charges.

We argued that the seriousness of an allegation is not, by itself, enough to justify suspension. The Tribunal had to consider whether suspension was necessary, whether conditions would be sufficient and whether removing the doctor from practice before the allegations had been tested would be proportionate.

Why conditions were sufficient

In the alternative to our primary position, we submitted that if the Tribunal considered some form of restriction was required, conditions of practice would be sufficient and proportionate.

Conditions can protect the public and maintain confidence while allowing a doctor to continue practising under safeguards.

In this case, the available evidence did not identify clinical concerns. The allegations did not arise from patient care. There was no history of previous fitness to practise concerns. There had been no criminal charge following the police investigation.

We submitted that those factors were important when assessing whether interim suspension was necessary, or whether conditions could address the Tribunal’s concerns.

The MPTS outcome

The Tribunal imposed interim conditions of practice rather than interim suspension.

The doctor was not suspended from the medical register. He remained able to continue working in clinical practice, subject to safeguards, monitoring and notification requirements while the GMC investigation progressed.

The conditions included requirements to notify the GMC of employment details, inform relevant professional bodies and employers of the conditions, obtain approval before working in certain settings, and use a chaperone when consulting with female patients except in life-threatening emergencies.

The order was imposed for 18 months, with a review to take place within six months.

Why this outcome matters

This outcome mattered because interim suspension would have removed the doctor from practice before the investigation had concluded.

Where the GMC seeks interim suspension, the defence must focus on necessity, proportionality, public protection, public interest and whether conditions can manage any identified risk.

In this case, the Tribunal imposed conditions rather than suspension. That allowed the doctor to continue practising under safeguards while the GMC investigation progressed.

What this case shows

This case demonstrates the importance of tactical representation at GMC Interim Orders Tribunal hearings.

A serious allegation does not automatically mean a doctor should be suspended by a GMC Interim Orders Tribunal. The Tribunal must consider whether interim suspension is necessary, whether conditions would be sufficient, and whether restriction is proportionate before the allegations have been tested.

The key questions include:

• whether there is a real risk to patients or the public;
• whether the allegations arise from clinical practice or outside work;
• whether there are previous fitness to practise concerns;
• whether there has been a criminal charge or conviction;
• whether safeguards can be put in place;
• whether conditions are workable;
• whether suspension is necessary to maintain public confidence; and
• whether interim suspension would be proportionate.

Comment from Jared McNally

“Interim Orders Tribunal hearings can decide whether a doctor continues working or is removed from practice before the allegations have been tested. The stakes are high.

In this case, the GMC relied on serious allegations, but the police had taken no further action and there were no clinical concerns. The result was an order of conditions rather than suspension, allowing the doctor to continue practising under safeguards while the investigation proceeds.

Serious allegations require careful handling, but they do not automatically justify interim suspension. The Tribunal must consider necessity, risk, proportionality and whether conditions can properly address the concerns.”

GMC Interim Orders Tribunal solicitors for doctors

Clifford Johnston & Co represents doctors facing GMC investigations, Interim Orders Tribunal hearings and MPTS proceedings.

Our GMC solicitors provide strategic advice and robust representation in cases involving the risk of interim conditions, interim suspension, warnings, suspension or erasure from the medical register.

If you are a doctor facing a GMC investigation or an Interim Orders Tribunal hearing, early specialist advice can make a decisive difference.

Contact Clifford Johnston & Co for confidential, strategic advice before responding to the GMC.