AC-2025-CDF-000062 - [2025] EWHC 2619 (Admin)

Fecha: 10-Oct-2025

Ground 1: Failure to balance aggravating and mitigating factors appropriately

Ground 1: Failure to balance aggravating and mitigating factors appropriately

62.

The appellant submits that, upon reading the sanction decision as a whole, the MPT failed to give proper weight to what he maintains are strong mitigating factors. He submits that the following factors ought to have been given greater weight:

Remediation: The appellant submits that he has taken steps to remediate his impairment and has at all times been willing to take further steps.He has shown remorse in relation to those facts that he accepts. He has shown insight to the extent possible when he does not accept the allegations against him. Nothing more can be expected of him.

ii.

Character and career: He is of previous good character. All the evidence before the MPT showed that he has had a good medical career in Pakistan and in the United Kingdom.His career progression is well-documented and his latest appraisal document (“multi-source feedback”) demonstrates success in his training. He has produced testimonials which demonstrate his competence and ability as a doctor.He is dedicated to his profession which is very important to him.

iii.

Compliance: He complied with all police, court and GMC procedures.

63.

The appellant submits that there are no aggravating factors and that the conduct of which he was accused marked a serious but remediable departure from GMP, such that erasure was a disproportionate sanction.

64.

Mr Anderson submits that Ground 1 has no merit. He submits that the MPT had regard to both the aggravating and mitigating factors, which were properly balanced.

65.

It is plain that the appellant disagrees with the way in which the MPT has approached aggravating and mitigating factors but that does not mean that the MPT was wrong or that this court must or should intervene. The MPT was right to say that the seriousness of his impairment was aggravated by the various factors which I have set out earlier in this judgment. The appellant is wrong to discount them. The MPT was entitled to conclude that the aggravating factors should carry weight. Its decision was clear and well-structured.

66.

There is no merit to the appellant’s submission that the MPT failed to appreciate that mitigating factors may carry more weight in cases concerned with public confidence in the profession than in cases raising patient safety (Guidance para 24). The MPT’s approach to mitigating factors in this serious case, and the balance that it struck, cannot be impeached.

67.

For these reasons, Ground 1 does not succeed.