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

The appellant submits that the MPT elevated the importance of public perception of the alleged conduct at the expense of a proper analysis of the prospects of remediation. He submits that the centrality of public perception to the MPT’s sanction decision was “a violation of both guidance and precedents.” By precedents, the appellant is referring to other cases that have come before the courts.

As I have indicated, this Ground relates both to the application of the Guidance and to the effect of case law. It is convenient to consider the appellant’s submissions about the case law before turning to his submissions on the Guidance and then to his more general submissions on public perception.