[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 v Kumar [2012] EWHC 2387 (Admin) (19 July 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2387.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 2387 (Admin)

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

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

		Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M3 3FX
		19th July 2012

1. HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVIES: This is an application brought by the claimant, the General Medical Council, for an order extending an interim order of suspension in relation to the defendant, Dr Veeresh Kumar. In July 2009 the Interim Orders Panel made an order of interim suspension for a period of 18 months. That is due to expire. The expiry date is now 20th July 2012 and this application is for an extension of 6 months.
2. The period of suspension that has already taken place is of some considerable duration, and it is in those circumstances that Mr Morgan, counsel for the claimant, has provided me with a full explanation of the history of the case and a full justification for the extension sought. However I should begin by recording that the defendant doctor is not here today. There was an earlier application by the claimants, seeking an order permitting it to serve the claim and supporting evidence upon the defendant by an alternative method, namely by email to an email address through which the claimants has previously been able to communicate with the defendant. The claimant's difficulty is that it is clear that some time prior to January 2011 the defendant left the UK for India and has not since returned, so that he cannot be served at his registered address within the UK, nor is there an address for him known in any other country to which documents may be sent by post.
3. In accordance with the order made on that application and the claim and supporting evidence were duly served by email, I having been provided with evidence of service, so that I am satisfied that in those circumstances I may proceed today in the absence of the defendant.
4. This is a case where the concerns raised by the claimant relate to two allegations of misconduct, which are both allegations of sexual assault said to have been committed by the defendant while a trainee psychiatrist with a hospital trust in the Midlands in late 2008 and in early 2009.
5. There was a criminal investigation, which became protracted as a result of the defendant suffering from mental ill-health, but which eventually led to a trial being scheduled to take place in the Crown Court in early 2011. In the meantime the claimant, for entirely understandable reasons, took the view that it was not appropriate actively to instigate an investigatory procedure until such time as that criminal trial had been concluded. It did however, as I have already said, activate the interim suspension procedure and obtained the order to which I have referred.
6. The defendant failed to attend his trial, and investigations revealed that he had breached his bail conditions and fled to India, where it appears he remains.
7. The trial did not proceed in his absence, and there was a further period whilst the CPS decided what to do. They eventually decided to take no further positive steps to bring the defendant to justice, and once that decision was communicated the claimant took the view that it was appropriate to commence its own investigation. I am satisfied on the evidence that the claimant then acted with reasonable promptness in seeking and obtaining relevant information and documentation from the CPS and details of the victims' addresses to seek to make contact with them. The current position is that an extension of 6 months is required so that the victims can be traced and their assistance sought, a letter drafted and sent to the defendant and a Fitness to Practise Panel hearing procured with a view to a full hearing taking place. On the face of it, that is quite an ambitious timetable, and it remains to be seen whether it can be achieved in that time.
8. What I am considering today is whether or not the interim order should be extended. I should not make factual findings; I should consider the nature and seriousness of the allegations, and I must balance the need to protect the public with the interests of the defendant.
9. I am satisfied that these are serious allegations. I am satisfied that it would not be appropriate for the defendant to be permitted to practice as a doctor whilst they remain outstanding. I am satisfied on the evidence that I currently have that a further suspension will not seriously prejudice the defendant's interests, given that as matters currently stand he does not appear to have a current wish or ability to practice medicine in this jurisdiction, and I am satisfied it is proper to make an order which enables the General Medical Council to complete its procedures. In the circumstances of this case I take the view that although only 6 months' extension has been sought it would be more appropriate if Mr Morgan invites me to do so to extend the time for 9 months so as to reduce the need for a further application in a shorter time period than is necessary.
10. MR MORGAN: In the light of those observations, I do invite you to extend the period to a period of 9 months, both being consistent with the proper case management of the regulatory proceedings and the overriding objective to avoid costs.
11. HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVIES: I will do so.
12. MR MORGAN: My Lord, there is a costs application to be made and a costs schedule been served on the doctor. Can I hand that up if I may?
13. HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVIES: Do you have a draft order, while you are dealing with the documents?
14. MR MORGAN: I do. In tab 9 of your bundle, if there is not a copy, I can hand up a copy.
15. HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVIES: Thank you very much.
16. MR MORGAN: My Lord will see the costs sought fall into three categories: solicitors preparation costs, which of course embrace also the costs of the application for the service, of £639.50; there are issue fees of £465; counsel's brief fee of £800 and a value added tax element of £160, making a total of £2064.50. I make an application for costs in that sum please.
17. HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVIES: I am prepared to make an order that the defendant pay the claimant's costs of this application. It is clear that the defendant was invited to consent but failed to do so and in those circumstances the claimant had no option but to bring this application. I have been shown a copy of the statement of costs, and I am satisfied that the work done and the rates claimed and the disbursements incurred are all reasonable and proportionate. I therefore assess the costs in the amount claimed.
18. Turning then to the form of the order, I will insert a fourth recital as follows: and upon the defendant not attending but the court being satisfied as to service, I will make an order in terms of paragraph 1, save that I will extend for a further 9 months, which will take the expiry date to the 19th April 2013. Paragraph 2 will read: the defendant shall pay the claimant's costs of the application summarily assessed in the sum of £2064.50. I will make an order in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4, and I approve the reasons in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule to the order.
19. I will sign that order, and perhaps I can ask the court clerk or the usher to make a photocopy for you.
20. MR MORGAN: Would it be acceptable if a typed up copy is filed electronically this afternoon?
21. HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVIES: Yes of course.
22. MR MORGAN: Thank you very much indeed.