AC-2025-LON-000408 - [2025] EWHC 2846 (Admin)

Grounds 1 and 2. Belief in consent - (charges 1(b), 5(a) and (b). Once the Panel had decided to prefer Ms A’s evidence about the Bedroom Incident and the Sofa Incident, they were bound to consider the issue of whether she had consented and whether he had a reasonable belief that she consented. The Panel found that the burden was on the GMC to prove he did not have such belief. The Panel considered his subjective belief and his state of mind and then objectively considered whether it was reasonable. They noted that Dr Foy gave no direct evidence that he had any such belief and that was not his case. He denied the events. The GMC are right to submit that neither of the parties put forwards a case of sexual provocation by Ms A or belief in consent by Dr Foy. However, the primary factual findings which the Panel made and which Ms A admitted in relation to the Bedroom Incident included: (1) on her evidence, that her presence, cosy beside him on the sofa in May 2018 gave him an erection; (2) he had sent many messages saying she was beautiful and he had proposed that he deserved a kiss or sex by messaging her on 20.11.2028; (3) she had been at his birthday party on 17.11.2018 and was happy with her arms around him in photos taken that night; (4) she was alone in the house with him and he went into her bedroom at around 11 pm, asked her to come to his bedroom and she did so voluntarily; (5) she sat on his bed for around an hour until around midnight talking and sitting side by side looking at a laptop. As for the Sofa Incident, the Panel found that: (6) Ms A called Dr Foy for a lift back to Blackpool knowing that it was likely she would be alone in the car with him for 4-5 hours and staying over, 2 weeks after he had asked he to sleep with him; (7) on the drive he asked about her boyfriends and she messaged her sister who expressed no shock that she was in his car and gave no advice to be careful, despite her reporting his sexualised behaviour to her earlier; (8) Ms A did stay over, alone with him at his house; (9) at around midnight, as he lay on the sofa, she lay between his legs with her head on his abdomen (on a cushion) and her body on his pelvis/groin. At J64 the Panel found that the GMC had not proven that the Bedroom Incident occurred without Dr Foy having a reasonable belief that Ms A consented. At J172 the Panel found that, during the Sofa Incident, touching her breasts as she lay on him was done with a reasonable belief that she consented. Thereafter, when Ms A objected on the sofa, the belief in consent fell away. They also found at J161 that Dr Foy’s first account to O was that Ms A had provoked his body response when she lay on him at the start of the Sofa Incident. In my judgment the reasonable belief inferences were within the broad range of findings which the Panel could make on the evidence before them arising from their primary factual findings.

The Panel was required in law to set out their factual findings and to provide sufficient reasons so that the GMC understood why those were made and were able to appeal. Not every issue had to be dealt with. In the context of their main findings, and their rejection of Dr Foy’s complete denials, but also in the context of the Panel expressly recording that his earliest account was that he gained sexual stimulation by her lying on his pelvis at midnight on 2.12.2018 and by her being in his bedroom, sitting next to him on his bed at midnight for an hour on 20.11.2018, and her behaviour towards him, over the 7 months of their relationship being close, I consider that the Panel provided sufficient reasoning for their findings on his belief about what she would consent to.