The first appellant
The first appellant
As regards the first appellant, the Tribunal identified a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that she had put her own interests before those of her patients and failed to listen to other governance bodies and doctors when they told her that what she was doing was wrong. She had failed to demonstrate meaningful insight and remediation.
The MPTS identified the mitigating factors. There was no evidence of any previous or subsequent fitness to practise concerns. While the Tribunal identified a potential risk of harm to patients, there was no evidence of any actual harm to patients.
The MPTS determined that suspension was appropriate and determined that a duration of three months was sufficient to mark the nature and the seriousness of the misconduct.
- Heading
- Mrs Justice Farbey DBE
- Anonymity
- Legal framework for appeals
- The EA 2010
- Factual background
- The GMC proceedings: interim stages
- The first set of judicial review proceedings: decision by Eyre J
- The common allegations
- Additional allegations against the first appellant
- Additional allegations against the second appellant
- The course of the proceedings
- The abuse of process decision
- Adjournment
- The second set of judicial review proceedings: decision of Mr Paul Bowen KC
- The MPTS proceedings: Part 2
- The first appellant
- The second appellant
- Dr Strommer’s position
- Grounds 1-5: The effect of the previous judicial review proceedings
- Res judicata: legal framework
- The appellants’ submissions
- The respondent’s submissions
- Discussion
- Grounds 1-5 : The abuse of process decision
- Grounds 2, 4 and 5
- Ground 6
- Appeal against sanction: Grounds 7 and 8
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LON-001145 - [2025] EWHC 2075 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)