AC-2024-LON-001145 - [2025] EWHC 2075 (Admin)

Mr Ojo made written and oral submissions to the MPTS that the proceedings against the appellants were an abuse of process on a number of grounds. In addition, he submitted orally at the hearing on 12 July 2023 that the proceedings were an abuse because they were tainted by race discrimination. As regards his submissions on discrimination, his key contention was that, as Dr Strommer had worked at the Medical Centre on 1 November 2018, and was not facing the same allegations as the appellants, the question arose as to whether Dr Strommer was not being pursued by the GMC because he was of a different race to the appellants.

The transcript of proceedings shows that Mr Ojo made the following submissions about this question:

“We say the answer must be yes, that race played a very important role in the referral of these doctors to the MPTS today, and for that reason alone we say the Tribunal is invited or asked to take that into account and come to the conclusion that these doctors have no case to answer.

In fact, the Tribunal could not be seen to be facilitating a case where these doctors will be facing disciplinary and regulatory actions in the circumstances where race played a very important role.

Mr Brown confirmed in his evidence that if Dr Agoe and Dr Ali were facing any regulatory sanctions or effects as regards the CQC, that would equally apply to every other registrant, in fact the two other doctors who are named on the CQC registration at the relevant time, but we know as a matter of fact that the two other registrants, or at least one of them, who was working on 1 November, is not facing similar proceedings as Dr Agoe and Dr Ali face today. That is as far as my first submission goes.

…

I say that the rule of law and the administration of justice would be undermined seriously and significantly by the conduct of the GMC if these proceedings were to continue, in that continuing the case will offend the Tribunal’s sense of propriety and justice.”

As Mr Ojo’s submissions were unheralded, Counsel for the GMC was granted time to prepare written submissions on discrimination. At the resumed hearing on 14 July 2023, Mr Ojo made further submissions. He emphasised again that the GMC had decided to take no action against Dr Strommer. He contended that the failure to take disciplinary action against Dr Strommer raised a prima facie case of difference in treatment which shifted the burden to the GMC to establish the reason for the difference. He submitted that the GMC had failed to discharge that burden. He submitted that there was no evidence that the GMC had spoken to Dr Strommer in order to come to the conclusion that he could properly be treated differently to the appellants.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the GMC submitted that the GMC had given proper consideration as to whether there were concerns about Dr Strommer’s fitness to practise and had concluded that there were none. By contrast, there were serious concerns identified in relation to the appellants. It was those serious concerns that had caused the GMC to take action. The abuse of process decision records Counsel as having “submitted that information about [Dr Strommer’s] race was not available to the decision maker” who considered Dr Strommer’s case.

In its written decision, the MPTS noted (at para 62) that the appellants did not challenge the “submission” that the GMC were not aware of Dr Strommer’s race. It accepted what Counsel said and concluded “on the balance of probabilities there had not been discrimination on grounds of race” in referring the case of each appellant to the MPTS.

The MPTS was willing to assume that Dr Strommer was of a different race to the appellants. Nevertheless, the MPTS stated (at para 62) that it “could not conclude on the balance of probabilities that there was discrimination on grounds of race by the GMC and as a result there was no abuse of process, as the GMC were not aware of the race of [Dr Strommer].”

The MPTS concluded in addition that Dr Strommer appeared to be in a different position to the appellants on the following basis:

Overall, the MPTS found that there was no evidence that the decision to refer the appellants to the MPTS was based on race. It followed that the GMC had not discriminated on grounds of race and the Tribunal proceedings were not an abuse of process (para 70). For these reasons, the application for a stay of proceedings on abuse of process grounds was refused (para 71).