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

The appellant refers to a number of cases which (he submits) demonstrate on their facts and in their outcomes that the MPT in the present case took an erroneous approach towards whether suspension, rather than erasure, was appropriate: Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 64, [2017] 1 W.L.R. 169, paras 12-18 and 36-41; Giele v GMC [2005] EWHC 2143 (Admin), [2006] 1 W.L.R. 942, paras 15-18 and 21-23; Bijl v GMC [2001] UKPC 42,  (2002) 65 B.M.L.R. 10, paras 13-15.

It is not fruitful to compare the facts of one case with another. The central question is not what happened in other cases on other facts but whether the MPT has reached a wrong decision on the facts of this case. As the appellant accepts, this central question is essentially to be resolved by applying the Guidance to the facts of this case.