Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Public law and Regulation

Case reports and guidance on public law and professional regulation issues

09 OCT 2012

Abdullah v General Medical Council [2012] 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

Administrative Court

Lindblom J

(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.

Education Law Reports

Education Law Reports

Comprehensive and reliable reporting service.

More Info from £155.00
Available in Education Law Online
Education Law Journal

Education Law Journal

Keeping you up to date with the latest developments in education law.

Available in Education Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters