DECISION...
@tribunaltweets
HHJ Pearce - the overarching objective of the GMC is protection of the public and they have statutory powers to investigate and refer to an IOT. The IOT has power to make interim orders or suspension. Beyond 18 months, claimant may apply to the High Court for review.
The Ct may quash, revoke or vary the order on applications for extension that is no order, the claimant's request or shorten the order.
Parliament inserted a condition that allows extensions as longer periods than 18 months may be necessary, and exercised by the ct.
Ct acts as primary decision maker. Criteria are the same as the original order - gravity, nature of evidence and impact on public and reasons for extension.
Ct does not consider the merits. J quotes LJ Ardern on this matter.
Decision on extension and the allegations, not the merits of the case.
para 33 Hue (sp?) decision by LJ Arden - the Ct can look beyond the allegations. Para 29 - GMC reasons.
Delay - NatWestMarkets plc 2021 case - judgment handed down 19 months later. The general rule is deliver within 3 months because justice delayed is justice denied.
The delay in the NatWest & Bilter case was inexcusable. Delay alone does not allow setting aside a judgment. Special care is required.
J notes what TB said having issues of dishonesty hanging over the doctor and says mere delay isn't sufficient to interfere.
J summarises the length of the tribunal, which adjourned on 15 Oct. Tribunal will reconvene for 4 days ion jan and reconvene for it's findings in April, to consider Dr's fitness to practice and consequences.
J shares concern that it may not conclude until 2023.
Request for 8 months extension would not cover the case through to conclusion if impairment is found.
TB submtted u/ts were offered on behalf of the doctor. Even if the claimant cld make out an argument for extension, it would be disproportionate on HW.
The J adjourned the hearing last week to allow further submissions on this.
J summarises the history. CQC suspended an orgn HW worked for due to concerns abt inappropriate prescribing. Not all those concerns have been laid before the tribunal. Some have been.
10 areas of concern:
- Pt A - prescription of testosterone inappropriate for a 12 year old. A gave evidence "probably life saving treatment."
- Pt B - over 16 years
- Pt C - under 16 yrs - TB said less serious as puberty blockers (think this was due to an implication its' reversible)
4 Pts D & E
- Membership of RCGP
- completion of form for Pharnacy
- failure to notify phramacy suspension of
- allegation she frustrated investigation by Aneurin HT
- Gender GP involvement
10 - conviction of running an unregistered agency