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

Introduction

Dr Amitabh Kumar challenges the decision, made by the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on 1 April 2025, that his name be erased from the register of medical practitioners (“the Register”).

Dr Kumar first registered with the GMC on 22 August 2013. He had qualified as a doctor in 1996 after training at King George’s Medical College in Lucknow, India. On 15 August 2014 Dr Kumar was convicted, following a guilty plea, of a sexual assault on 15-year-old girl contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The events leading to that conviction had taken place 18 April 2014, on a bus, when Dr Kumar touched the neck and hair of a 15-year-old girl passenger and used his foot to rub her leg. He was sentenced to a community punishment and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 5 years. In July 2015 Dr Kumar’s case was considered at a hearing of the Fitness to Practise Panel of the GMC (“the Panel”). The Panel concluded that Dr Kumar’s fitness to practise was impaired both by reason of the conviction and because he had failed to report that conviction to the GMC. The Panel decided that Dr Kumar’s registration should be suspended for 12 months.

Dr Kumar has remained on suspension ever since. The decision to suspend has been reviewed on a number of occasions. First, at hearings: in July 2017 where the suspension was extended for 9 months; in May 2018 when a further suspension period of 8 months was imposed; at a hearing in January and March 2019 which resulted the suspension being extended by 8 months; and then in September 2019 when the suspension was extended for another 12 months.

The hearing in September 2019 was the last time before April 2025 that Dr Kumar’s position was considered at a hearing. Between 2019 and 2025 the suspension was continued after consideration at what are referred to as a “Review on the Papers” (“ROP”). Rule 21B of the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Rules provides as follows:

“21B. Review on the papers

(1)

A matter must be considered on the papers where it has been referred to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal at a review hearing and the MPTS receives confirmation in writing from the practitioner and the Registrar that the parties agree to the terms of a direction, revocation or variation which that Tribunal could make under section 35D(5), (6), (8), (10) or (12) of the Act.

(2)

Consideration on the papers under paragraph (1) may be carried out by the Chair of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, or the Tribunal itself.

(3)

Where the Chair of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal or the Tribunal itself determines that the Tribunal should hold a hearing to consider the matter and the MPTS arrange a hearing for that purpose in accordance with section 35D(13), the other provisions of this Part are to apply for the purposes of that hearing.”

In this case, ROPs took place in August 2020 (resulting in extension of the suspension for 12 months); August 2021 (a further 12 months extension); August 2022 (another extension for 12 months); July 2023 (an extension of 9 months); and May 2024 (a further extension of the suspension for 9 months). A more detailed narrative of what happened on these occasions, starting with the 2015 hearing is set out in the Tribunal’s decision under challenge in these proceedings. That decision is annexed to this judgment.