Abdullah v General Medical Council  EWHC 2506 (Admin) (2012) PLLR 126
Doctors - fitness to practice - sexual misconduct - investigation - interim order - suspension - necessary and proportionate - public interest - length of suspension
The Interim Orders Panel of the General Medical Council was correct to suspend a doctor who was the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct, where it believed suspension to be necessary to protect public confidence in the medical profession and to protect the public generally. However, a suspension of 18 months was disproportionate where the investigation could be carried out in less time, due to the serious impact on the doctor's livelihood and reputation.
7 September 2012
(1) The claimant (A) challenged, by way of section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983, an interim suspension order of 18 months made against him by the Interim Orders Panel (IOP) of the General Medical Council (GMC). This took place during an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct towards a patient.
An authoritative source of case reports covering every aspect of immigration, asylum and...