[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> General Medical Council, R (on the application of) v George [2007] EWHC 1677 (Admin) (27 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/1677.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 1677 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		27 March 2007

1. MR JUSTICE OWEN: The claimant is the regulatory body for the medical profession. The defendant, a medical practitioner, registered with the claimant. The claimant now seeks an order under section 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended), namely the extension of an Interim Order for suspension of the defendant's registration from 2 April 2007 to 1 April 2008.
2. This matter has a regrettably lengthy history, which it is not necessary for me to set out in detail for the purposes of this application. Suffice it to say that the suspension was imposed by the claimant's Interim Orders Committee, as it then was, on 6 March 2003. It was subsequently extended by this court on 1 September 2004 for a period of six months, on 24 February 2005 for a period of 12 months, on 28 February 2006 for a period of four months, and on 28 June 2006 for nine months. The interim order is now due to expire on 1 April 2007.
3. The order was last considered by the Interim Orders Panel on 1 February when it resolved to maintain the order and to direct the claimant's registrar to make the application now before me. In reaching its decision the Panel: Quote unchecked

"concluded that there is information before it that suggests Dr Abraham George's fitness to practise may be impaired. The Panel considers that these matters, if proved, demonstrate that Dr Abraham George poses a serious risk to patients if he were to continue in practice and would also seriously undermine the confidence of the public places in the medical profession and its practitioners".

The Particulars of Claim, at paragraph 50, give the reason for the application, namely: Quote unchecked

"The interim order therefore needs to be extended to allow sufficient time for Dr George's health to be allowed to be assessed and for the relisted hearing to be heard."

The resumed hearing is due to begin on 23 April and is listed for five days. It is plainly in the interests of all that the issues between the claimant and defendant are finally resolved at that hearing.

4. Mr Brassington has advanced two arguments in support of his application for an extension of 12 months. The first is that there can be no confidence that the hearing at the end of April will in fact bring an end to these proceedings. He prays in aid the fact that the defendant has failed to undergo the further medical examination. That was essentially the reason for the adjournment when the matter was last before the Fitness to Practise Panel in July 2006. He also points to what he submits is a lengthy history of attempts on the part of the defendant to frustrate the process.
5. The second argument is that there will be no prejudice to the defendant in an extension of the suspension for a further 12 months, on the basis that it is clear from the evidence that he is not fit to work and has not been fit to work since the first of the medical certificates was issued by his general practitioner as long ago as March 2003. He submits that there is no prejudice in a further suspension because, on his own account, the defendant is too ill to work. The defendant has both in person in his facsimile message to the court, and through his counsel, indicated that he would be prepared to agree to a further suspension for three months, so as to enable the hearing in late April to be concluded.
6. In approaching the question of a further suspension there are two principles of paramount importance. The first is that suspension of an individual from registration as a medical practitioner should be for no longer a period than is necessary. The second is that the protection of the public must be at the forefront of the court's mind in considering whether to order such an extension.
7. In his submissions to me Mr Brassington sought to assist by analysing the possible outcomes of the hearing before the Fitness to Practise Panel in late April. He suggested that either the Panel will find that the defendant's fitness to practise is impaired, or alternatively find that he has failed to comply with the reasonable requirements of the assessment team. That, of course, relates to the performance assessment that the claimants wish to carry out.
8. That, in my judgment, was a realistic assessment of the likely outcomes of the hearing in late April, and in either event the further suspension will become irrelevant. He does, however, point out that there is a third possibility, namely that the Panel will itself wish to adjourn in order to obtain further evidence as to the defendant's medical condition. I am bound to say that in the light of the full history of this matter, that seems to me to be highly unlikely. Accordingly, I proceed upon the basis that it is overwhelmingly likely that this matter can, and will, be satisfactorily resolved (satisfactorily in the sense of bringing matters to an end) at the hearing in April.
9. In those circumstances, and I return to the reason advanced in the Particulars of Claim for an extension, namely for sufficient time for his health to be assessed and for the relisted hearing to be heard, I am entirely satisfied that the term of three months for which the defendant contends, is an appropriate period for those objectives to be realised. I am unpersuaded that it is necessary, or appropriate, to extend the suspension for a full period of a further year.
10. Accordingly, there will be an order extending the suspension for a period of three months from 2 April 2007.
11. MISS BOWRON QC: In those circumstances, we made our open offer in those terms last week (?), I therefore apply for our costs (at least the contribution towards our costs) to reflect the fact it need not have gone ahead in the light of your Lordship's judgment. We have served a costs schedule on my learned friend. We have not had one in response. Our costs come in at just under £5,000.
12. MR JUSTICE OWEN: Yes, I have seen that. Thank you. Yes, Mr Brassington?
13. MR BRASSINGTON: It is rather difficult in the circumstances, it seems to me, to resist an application for an order for costs in those terms. My learned friend is right: an offer was made three months ago by the solicitors and by Dr George. We received their schedule of costs.
14. MR JUSTICE OWEN: In that case are there any observations that you want to make as to the content of that statement of costs?
15. MR BRASSINGTON: I was provided with it just before we came into court. I wonder if I might have an opportunity to briefly look at it?
16. MR JUSTICE OWEN: Yes, of course, do and do take instructions.
17. MR BRASSINGTON: (Instructions taken) Thank you for the time. Those who instruct me have had an opportunity to consider this schedule before now and they found nothing objectionable about it.
18. MISS BOWRON QC: The precise figure -- I said it was just under £5,000 -- is £4,982.59.
19. MR JUSTICE OWEN: Very well. There will be an order that the claimant pay the defendant's costs summarily assessed in the sum of £4,982.59.
20. MISS BOWRON QC: Thank you, my Lord.