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

Dr Foy faced 7 GMC charges split into various sub events. I summarise the charges and the findings as follows.

The Bedroom Incident. Charges 1(a) and (b) related to the Bedroom Incident in November 2018. The charges did not assert that he did his actions whilst Ms A was his patient. The Panel accepted Ms A’s evidence (the request to sleep with him and that he touched her breast) and rejected Dr Foy’s evidence (that she wore a t-shirt and he told her off in the sitting room), so found that he had touched her breast and asked her to sleep with him in his bedroom around midnight on 20.11.2018. However, the Panel also found (by inference) that he had a reasonable belief that she would consent to the touching, and because no allegation was raised that she was his patient, there was no misconduct or impairment, and no sanction arose.

HIV testing. Charges 2, 3 and 4 related to Ms A’s later assertions (long after December 2018) that when Dr Foy treated her in November 2018 for her malaise (vitamin D deficiency) he also urgently arranged an HIV test without her knowledge or consent, failed to document the reasons for doing so and failed to record the results in her medical notes or notify Ms A of the results or her GP or her treating doctors. On these charges the Panel rejected Ms A’s evidence and preferred Dr Foy’s evidence. They found that the HIV test was not clinically needed, and Dr Foy did not document the reason for it in her notes (admitted) and he made the request urgently (admitted) and he failed to tell her infectious disease clinicians (admitted). However, they found that he made the arrangement with her knowledge (so the lack of her knowledge charge was unproven), and he notified her of the result (so the alleged failure to tell her was unproven, as was the alleged failure to tell her GP). The Panel found that this was not serious misconduct and hence did not lead to consideration of impairment. No appeal was made over those findings.

Rape – the Sofa Incident. Charges 5, 6 and 7 all related to the Sofa Incident on 2.12.2018. It was not alleged that she was his patient at the time. It was split up into actions lettered (a) to (l). I remind myself that Dr Foy said none of the asserted assaults or the rape happened, instead he asserted that Ms A lay between his legs on his pelvis, and he accepted that he did try to peck her cheek to get her off. Taking into account that Dr Foy had admitted this it is difficult to understand why he did not admit charge 5(f). In any event, running from 5(a) to (l) Dr Foy was charged with and found guilty, on the balance of probabilities, of having done the following at around midnight on the sofa at his home in Blackpool on 2.12.2018: touching Ms A’s breast and breasts; pushing her down onto the sofa; laying on top of her; trying to kiss her; putting his tongue in her mouth; pinning her hands down; removing her trousers and pants; putting his penis into her vagina; having sex with her; ejaculating into her; and all this without consent (charge 5) and all but two with no reasonable belief that she consented. However, the Panel found that he reasonably believed that Ms A consented to his touching her breasts when she was lying between his legs, on his pelvis (5(a) and (b)). 5 (d) was not proven. The Panel found this was all sexually motivated.

Serious misconduct, impairment and Sanction The panel found that the rape was serious misconduct, but outside work. They considered that Ms A was not his patient at the time, was not especially vulnerable and that Dr Foy was not in loco parentis and that she was not in a close personal relationship or a relative of his. The Panel did not consider that there was a risk of repetition. They concluded that this was a “one off”, in particular circumstances. He had an impeccable record and good character and so the Panel decided that Dr Foy was not impaired on public protection grounds but was impaired on public interest grounds (the reputation of the profession). The Panel took into account the case law put before them and the Sanctions Guidance (SG), categorised the rape in the various SG categories, assessed the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors and decided that suspension was the appropriate sanction allied with a review at the end of 12 months.