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

The Tribunal bore in mind that, in his witness statement, the appellant had expressed remorse and offered apologies to his children, his parents, his extended family, his employer, the wider medical profession, patients and the public. The Tribunal noted that his statement did not deal with the impact of his actions on his wife. He did not express remorse towards her or apologise to her in his witness statement.

As for the appellant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal’s impairment decision observed that, when cross-examined, the appellant had apologised for “missing out” his wife in his written statement. He had offered an oral apology in relation to the impact of his behaviour on his wife but did not apologise for the use of violence – which he denied. The Tribunal noted that the appellant “referred to his ex-wife as being very unkind in the things that she said” which he maintained were “not entirely factual.” The appellant regarded the conflict with his wife as no more than “a lot of bickering.” He mentioned the impact on his children as being the breakdown of the family unit and did not mention the impact of the children witnessing violence. The Tribunal concluded that, in all the circumstances, his remorse for his offending was limited.