![AC-2025-CDF-000062 - [2025] EWHC 2619 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Ground 3: Error in the determination of sanction
Ground 3: Error in the determination of sanction
Finally, I turn to the appellant’s overall contention that the MPT erred in its determination of sanction because erasure was neither necessary nor proportionate. Standing back, this ground of appeal fails for the following reasons.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Legal framework
- Sanctions guidance
- Proportionality
- Mitigating and aggravating factors
- Treatment of criminal convictions
- Suspension
- Erasure
- GMC Policy: Good Medical Practice
- The facts
- Proceedings before the MPT
- Remorse
- Insight
- Risk of repetition
- Impairment
- Sanction
- Appellant’s overarching submissions
- The approach of the Guidance to violent offences
- MPT’s approach to insight and remorse
- Ground 1: Failure to balance aggravating and mitigating factors appropriately
- Ground 2: Failure to apply the Guidance and precedents correctly
- Other cases
- Guidance
- Public perception
- Ground 3: Error in the determination of sanction
- Seriousness of offending
- Insight and remediation
- Conclusions