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

Ground 1- Inferences – belief of consent. The GMC challenge the inferential findings of fact of the Panel (charge 6(b)) which related to charges 1(a) and (b) (the Bedroom Incident) and 5(a) and (b) (the Sofa Incident – groping Ms A’s breasts). The GMC submit that the findings that these actions were done with a reasonable belief that Ms A consented were wrong or speculation. Furthermore, the Panel found that Dr Foy was pre-occupied with Ms A and believed might reciprocate his desires, but there was no factual basis for those findings. The GMC submit that (1) Dr Foy did not assert that he had any such belief, instead he denied that the events occurred. (2) Neither party advanced such a case. (3) The Panel wrongfully relied on what Dr Foy said to O in the phone calls. (4) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 S.1(2) and S.3(2) require the tribunal to have regard to all of the circumstances including the steps taken by the charged person to ascertain whether the complainant consents. The GMC submitted that the circumstances of the Bedroom Incident and the Sofa Incident were not sufficient to give rise to any reasonable belief that she was consenting to her breasts being touched. Relying on the judgment of Mostyn J in Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 5050 at para. 18, the GMC assert that the inferences were wholly contrary to the evidence and unsafe and the reasons given were insufficient.

Ground 2 – reasoning. The GMC also criticise the Panel’s inferences on belief of consent by asserting that the reasoning was inadequate.