|[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 >> George v The General Medical Council  EWHC 1738 (Admin) (05 May 2016)
Cite as:  EWHC 1738 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL||Respondent|
WordWave International Limited
Trading as DTI
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ivan Hare (instructed by GMC Legal) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
i. "Reason: Offence so serious. Reason for custody: prolonged nature of harassment and significant impact on victim of family dispute."
i. "The appellant must have appreciated that they would be discovered by his son-in-law and that he would have to deal with him. Indeed that was the whole point of their being sent by his father-in-law. Not only in my view was it open to the court to find that they were oppressive, in my view, it was the only possible conclusion on those facts."
i. "Whilst I accept the fact of my conviction, it would be misleading of me to say that I accept the particular finding that I was malicious. Had I been malicious, I could have made up concerns about [the son-in-law]'s competence ... but I did not."
i. "... I cannot in all conscience give an unreserved apology for my actions, I have learned lessons from them and from the consequences which followed. It is unlikely that I will ever again be in a position of needing to report a practitioner to the GMC."
i. "15. The panel considered that a conviction for harassment is not, in itself, incompatible with continued registration. However, it considered that the conviction taken together with Dr Abraham George's behaviour and attitude since, does amount to conduct which is not compatible with continued registration. The panel has taken a serious view of Dr Abraham George's behaviour towards a fellow doctor and his regulator, and is concerned that he has taken little responsibility for his actions despite the clear findings of the Court. Dr Abraham George continues to blame others for the consequences of his actions. The panel considered this attitude to be deep-seated and entrenched. Although the panel noted that there has been no repetition of the conviction or the specific behaviour that resulted in it, it considered that Dr Abraham George's attitudinal problem has persisted. Given the lack of insight that Dr Abraham George has demonstrated during the five years since his conviction, and the lack of remediation, the panel considered that a period of suspension would not be appropriate. Furthermore, suspension would be insufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession in the particular circumstances of this case."
i. "17. The panel is satisfied that the factors listed above apply in this case. Taken together, Dr Abraham George's conviction and behaviour since his conviction represents a serious departure from the principles set out in Good Medical Practice; in particular, the overriding duty to ensure that conduct justifies patients' trust in doctors and the profession. Dr Abraham George has demonstrated a concerning and persistent lack of insight over an extended period of time about the effect of his actions on the profession. The panel considered that Dr Abraham George has had ample time since the incident to remediate his conduct and behaviour, but has chosen not to do so. His position has not changed since his conviction, and the panel is concerned that a registered medical practitioner has displayed such an entrenched and inflexible attitude."
i. "As it seems to me the fact that a principal purpose of the panel's jurisdiction in relation to sanctions is the preservation and maintenance of public confidence in the profession rather than the administration of retributive justice, particular force is given to the need to accord special respect to the judgment of the professional decision-making body in the shape of the panel ... the High Court will correct material errors of fact and of course of law and it will exercise a judgment, though distinctly and firmly a secondary judgment, as to the application of the principles to the facts of the case".