AC-2023-LON-002171 - [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin)

Mr Hodivala emphasised the PCC’s findings that dishonesty had not been proved in relation to a number of the charges faced by the Appellant and that the Committee’s reasoning involved an acceptance that she was very busy at the time, that her record keeping was poor and her administration chaotic and that she did not properly check the forms, for example in relation to charges 4(c) and 6(a) (paras 59 – 61 and 71 above). Furthermore, in relation to charge 5(b) the PCC had accepted that the allegations of dishonesty were not proven in light of Dr Imani’s explanation as to how she had genuinely misunderstood what she was required to enter on the FP17 form. He submitted that in light of these findings it was inconsistent and wrong for the PCC to find these other allegations of dishonesty proved, particularly as they were also based on a misunderstanding regarding completion of the FP17 forms. He said that there was no evidential or rational basis for the different conclusions reached and that the circumstances were identical.

Mr Hodivala also criticised the PCC’s reasons for rejecting Dr Imani’s explanation as to why she had completed the FP17 form as she had (paras 74 - 75 above). It was unfair of the Committee to rely upon Jill Graham’s evidence that she would not have advised Dr Imani to complete the form in this way (para 75 above). The Appellant’s evidence was not that this was what Jill Graham had told her to do, rather her evidence was that this was how she had understood Ms Graham’s advice at the time.

Mr Hodivala drew attention to the wording of charge 9: “you sought to obtain additional UDAs to which you knew you were not entitled” (emphasis added). This was not a case about blind-eyed recklessness. He submitted that the PCC failed to apply the subjective limb of the Ivey test, in that the Committee failed to find that the Appellant knew that the declaration on the relevant FP17 form was wrong and/or that the data submitted in the form was wrong and that she was not entitled to make a claim in the way that she had done. He said that the PCC wrongly focused on the objective limb of the Ivey test. In this regard, Mr Hodivala referred specifically to evidence given by the Appellant as to the extent to which others at the practices had a role in the completion of the forms.

Mr Hodivala indicated that he did not pursue the allegation in his skeleton argument that it was never put to Dr Imani that she was not telling the truth in relation to the misunderstanding that she described.