|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Kimmance v General Medical Council  EWHC 1808 (Admin) (11 May 2016)
Cite as:  EWHC 1808 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
1 Bridge Street West
B e f o r e :
|DR SIMON KIMMANCE|
|GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL|
MR PAUL OZIN QC appeared on behalf of the respondent
(Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers)
1st Floor, Paddington House, New Road, Kidderminster DY10 1AL
Tel: 01562 60921 Fax: 01562 743235 email@example.com
Transcription Suite, 3 Beacon Road, Billinge, Wigan WN5 7HE
Tel & Fax: 01744 601880 firstname.lastname@example.org
Crown Copyright ©
Wednesday, 11th May 2016
MR JUSTICE KERR:
"The panel found that, in light of its findings, Dr Kimmance's actions undermined the public's trust in the medical profession. It also found that Dr Kimmance displays a profound and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of his actions and the consequences, particularly in respect of the alarm and distress the correspondence he sends causes the recipients.
In all these circumstances, the panel determined to erase Dr Kimmance's name from the medical register in order to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The panel accepts that this sanction has the potential to impact on Dr Kimmance both professionally and financially, however the public interest outweighs his own interests in the specific circumstances of this case."
"was in conflict with local authorities, and the Chair of the panel's background was in local authority managements/senior roles – a similar background to the witnesses in the case. The Appellant's concern in relation to Mr Elliott (a barrister) was that the Appellant is sympathetic to the fathers' rights movement and therefore critical of the justice system."
That, she submitted, was sufficient to raise a real possibility of bias in the classic sense articulated by Lord Hope at paragraph 103 of his speech in Porter v Magill  2 AC 357.
"Although the allegations against Dr Kimmance are not that he was dishonest in his communications as a matter of one of the allegations, what you have found in your determination is that the material he was sending was offensive, particularly because of the descriptions of the behaviour of some of [the] social workers in describing them, for example, as kidnappers, and that their actions amounted to being harmful against children."
"It has already been submitted that, whilst you have not been asked to make any finding of Dr Kimmance being dishonest, he is somebody who has acted, in my respectful submission, without integrity. Of course, you may have concluded as part of your assessment that his emails were offensive; that, if any of the comments that he was making about people had any kind of foundation, then they would not necessarily meet the test of being offensive, and so his allegations must clearly have been baseless and therefore there is an element of dishonesty, but you have not been asked to make a specific finding of that."
"11. She [the legal assessor] went on to refer the panel to the recommendations relating to the findings of impairment set out by Dame Janet Smith in the fifth report of the Shipman Inquiry. She advised the panel that it should take into consideration whether its findings of fact mean that Dr Kimmance has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to:
- cause unwarranted risk of harm to patients; and/or
- bring the profession into disrepute; and/or
- breach a fundamental tenet of the profession; and/or
- behave dishonestly.
12. Having referred the panel to these recommendations, the legal assessor emphasised that it should bear in mind that there was no allegation or finding of dishonesty against Dr Kimmance in this case."
So, the panel was not misled or led astray by the irregularity to which I have referred, but that does not mean that it should have happened.
"In summary, while I would be duty bound to report issues that would impair Dr Kimmance's Fitness to Practise, there is not a shred of evidence of that in his work performance here. I would encourage you to look at the motivation and integrity of West Berkshire Council in making this case to the GMC. I am personally satisfied that Dr Kimmance is fit and safe to practice [sic] medicine."
The reference to West Berkshire Council was to one of the bodies to whom the appellant had sent communications leading to the charges.