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

I do not consider that the sanction of erasure from the Register was disproportionate. Nor do I consider the decision to impose that sanction was inconsistent with the GMC’s Sanctions Guidance.

Dr Kumar’s submission is that the Tribunal failed to explain why continued suspension had ceased to be appropriate.

The general approach in the Sanctions Guidance is that the sanction imposed should be the least restrictive and should be “proportionate weighing the interest of the public against those of the doctor” (Guidance at paragraph 20). The available sanctions are listed at paragraph 66 of the Sanctions Guidance. Erasure from the Register is the most severe sanction; suspension of registration is the next most severe sanction. As to suspension, the Guidance states as follows at paragraph 92.

“92.

Suspension will be an appropriate response to misconduct that is so serious that action must be taken to protect members of the public and maintain public confidence in the profession. A period of suspension will be appropriate for conduct that is serious but falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with continued registration (ie for which erasure is more likely to be the appropriate sanction because the tribunal considers that the doctor should not practise again either for public safety reasons or to protect the reputation of the profession).”

This, then is the rationale for a decision to suspend registration or, as in this case, a decision to continue such suspension. However, it is also clear that suspension is not an end in itself. Suspensions must be reviewed, and suspension is to be imposed with a view to remediation and thus ultimately with a view to the suspension of the doctor’s registration being lifted (see for example the Guidance at paragraphs 95, 100 and 101). Indefinite suspension is limited to cases where the reason for suspension is the doctor’s English language skills, or his health. In such cases erasure from the Register is not an option: see Guidance at paragraphs 104 and 107.

At paragraph 109, the Guidance sets out a non-exhaustive list of situations in which erasure from the Register may be appropriate. The possibility of erasure from the Register is not limited to situations giving rise to a risk of patient harm. A tribunal is entitled to access each situation on its own terms. In this case, as in many other regulatory contexts, guidance is just that, a guide not a straitjacket.

In the present case the Tribunal’s reasons both for rejecting continuation of the suspension and for its decision to erase Dr Kumar’s name from the Register included the following. First, the Tribunal relied on the passage of time since suspension had first been imposed in 2015. At the time of the Tribunal’s decision on this occasion the suspension had been in place for almost 10 years. Second, the Tribunal considered the deterioration of Dr Kumar’s insight into his misconduct. Third, the Tribunal considered the deterioration of Dr Kumar’s clinical skills during the period of suspension. It is striking that, even after Dr Kumar was removed from the sex offenders register (which would have been no later than 2020), he had taken no steps to restore or maintain his clinical skills. When considering the question of sanction, the Tribunal also considered the three overarching objectives of the regulatory scheme stated at section 1(1A) of the Medical Act 1983: to promote the health and safety of the public; to maintain and promote public confidence in the medical profession; and to maintain and promote proper standards for the conduct of the profession.

Considering the Tribunal’s reasoning in the round, I am entirely satisfied that its decision not to continue the suspension but instead erase Dr Kumar’s name from the Register was both entirely consistent with the Guidance, and correct. It would have been wrong of the Tribunal, and clearly inconsistent with the overarching objectives of the regulatory scheme, to prolong this suspension beyond the 10 years it had already been in place. Dr Kumar was not fit to return to practise and there was no sign that that state of affairs was likely to change.

Dr Kumar contends that the Tribunal disregarded evidence of his mental health and that this amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment contrary to ECHR article 3.

At paragraph 52 of its decision the Tribunal said this:

“52.

The Tribunal noted the fact that Dr Kumar has referred to having health issues during both this hearing and previous reviews. However, it accepted the GMC submission that little weight can be applied to this assertion as the Doctor has failed to provide any evidence of this. Further, Dr Kumar has told the Tribunal himself that he has continued to work for 6 of the 11 years he has been suspended, and he is working currently.”

This conclusion reveals no error, and certainly nothing that could comprise or even approach article 3 ill-treatment.