AC-2024-MAN-000469 - [2025] EWHC 2049 (Admin)

Accordingly, for all these reasons, I conclude that the finding made by the Tribunal was wrong. In exercise of the court’s powers set out in section 40(7)(b) of the Medical Act 1983, I allow the appeal and quash the decision appealed against.

Ms Hearnden invited me, in addition, to exercise the power in section 40(7)(d) to remit the case back to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (“MPTS”) to dispose of the case in accordance with the directions of the court. She relied on the serious nature of the allegation against the Appellant and the fact that this judgment did not involve any assessment that no reasonable Tribunal could find that the Appellant had slapped Patient A as alleged.

Ms Tanchel contended that it was not consistent with the overriding objective to remit the matter given the age of the allegations, the length of time over which the Appellant has been involved in proceedings of various kinds arising out of the incident, the number of times the witnesses have already given evidence about the key issues (which could well adversely impact on the quality of their evidence) and the financial cost to the Appellant of further proceedings.

In my judgment these are all potentially powerful arguments, but it is more appropriate that the Appellant advances them in the specialist disciplinary process, as it is recognised that a degree of deference attaches to the Tribunal’s role in assessing arguments of this kind: R (Clinton) v GMC [2017] EWHC 3304 (Admin) at [24], per Choudhury J.

I therefore remit paragraph 1a of the Allegation back to the fitness to practise proceedings, to the stage after referral to the MPTS under Rule 8 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 (“the 2004 Rules”) but prior to the opening of the hearing before the Tribunal under Rule 17 of the 2004 Rules.

This will enable the Respondent to retain the discretion to decide whether or not it is appropriate to proceed to a further hearing, or instead to seek withdrawal of the allegation under Rule 28 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules prior to any further Tribunal hearing, having regard to the evidence now available and the overarching objective set out in section 1 of the Medical Act 1983. It will also provide the Appellant with the opportunity to argue, before the Tribunal, that the matter should not be re-heard (so advised).

I reiterate my thanks to both counsel for the highly professional way in which this appeal was presented.