AC-2025-MAN-000198 - [2025] EWHC 3017 (Admin)

The Tribunal noted that following the review hearing that took place in 2017, the tribunal hearing that review had concluded that it was:

“11.

… satisfied that Dr Kumar had demonstrated exceptional insight and now understood the gravity of the offence, which resulted in him no longer being impaired by reason of his conviction. However, the 2017 Tribunal considered there to be insufficient evidence of remediation, particularly in maintaining his skills and knowledge. The 2017 Tribunal concluded that Dr Kumar’s fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of misconduct.

12.

In considering sanction, the 2017 Tribunal was impressed by Dr Kumar’s level of insight but concerned about the absence of evidence of maintaining skills and knowledge. The 2017 Tribunal suspended Dr Kumar’s registration for a period of nine months to provide Dr Kumar with the opportunity to seek and secure clinical attachments, as well as to undertake necessary courses. The 2017 Tribunal provided recommendations for evidence to be obtained by Dr Kumar that would assist a reviewing Tribunal.”

Dr Kumar’s submission now is that the Tribunal ought not to have “departed from” the conclusion reached following the 2017 review hearing on his insight into his misconduct (i.e. the criminal offence he had pleaded guilty to in 2014 and his failure to report the matter to the GMC).

I reject that submission. Whatever the position in 2017, the Tribunal in 2025 had to consider all the evidence available to it. This much is clear from Rule 22 of the Fitness to Practise Rules which set out the procedure to be followed at a review hearing; each such hearing is an evidentiary hearing. Any other conclusion would be surprising. To take Dr Kumar’s situation as an example. His suspension had been reviewed on successive occasions over a 10-year period. The whole point of those reviews was to consider the situation afresh taking account of up to date information. The conclusion reached in 2017 based on Dr Kumar’s evidence on that occasion was not set in stone.

Thus, the Tribunal was entitled, if not required, to consider the question of insight taking account of both the statements made by Dr Kumar for the 2025 hearing (the one dated 27 February 2025 and the one provided immediately before the hearing on 1 April 2025). I have set out paragraph 31 of the Tribunal’s decision (see above at paragraph 9). That paragraph explains, clearly and appropriately, the Tribunal’s conclusion on Dr Kumar’s insight into his misconduct by reference to the evidence available in 2025. I consider that conclusion was correct.

In his Skeleton Argument for this hearing and in his submissions to me, Dr Kumar submitted that the Tribunal’s “departure” from the views on insight reached by the 2017 tribunal was irrational. It was nothing of the sort. The decision in 2025 rested on the evidence then available and it is impossible to characterise that decision as wrong. Nor is it right, in any relevant sense, to characterise the decision in 2025 as a “departure” from the 2017 decision. Each decision rested on the information available at the time it was made.