Dr Benjamin Amrakpovughe Obukofe v The General Medical Council

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Popplewell
Judgment Date28 January 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 408 (Admin)
Docket NumberCO/9350/2013
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date28 January 2014

[2014] EWHC 408 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Justice Popplewell

CO/9350/2013

Between:
Dr Benjamin Amrakpovughe Obukofe
Appellant
and
The General Medical Council
Respondent

The Appellant appeared in person

Mr I Hare (instructed by GMC Legal) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

Mr Justice Popplewell
1

This is an appeal by Dr Obukofe under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a decision on 18 April 2013 that his fitness to practise was impaired, and a decision on 20 June 2013 to impose a sanction of 12 months' suspension with a review at the end of that period. The decisions were made by a Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council.

The background

2

On 4 April 2011, Dr Obukofe was convicted at Leicester Crown Court of three counts of sexual assault following a trial. The assaults which were the subject matter of those convictions took place on two junior members of staff at the hospital in Leicester, at which Dr Obukofe was working at the time. One of the women who was assaulted was aged 17. The remarks of the sentencing judge indicate that the behaviour involved Dr Obukofe abusing his position over two junior members of staff. The sentences which were imposed at Leicester Crown Court in April 2011 were sentences of 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months on each of the three counts to run concurrently, and a Sex Offenders Register requirement for a period of 7 years.

3

The first incident involved the 17 year old who was a student working part time in the kitchen. The gravamen of the behaviour was that having previously winked at her and blown kisses and looked at her as if he were undressing her, on the occasion in question he brushed past her and touched her bottom which made her feel uncomfortable and scared.

4

The second count concerned a woman who worked as a ward receptionist. She complained that the background was that Dr Obukofe would look at her in a flirty way and had told her that he felt randy. The first of the two offences which concerned her occurred on the stairs when he stopped her, put his arms around her shoulders and nestled his head onto her neck. She was scared and upset and ran down the stairs. The second incident occurred later the same year, in which Dr Obukofe, in the kitchen, went around the kitchen trolley and intended to kiss her on the lips but ended up kissing her on the cheek as she turned her head away. He smirked at her and she felt really scared.

5

Dr Obukofe has maintained his innocence. He says that the two women have completely fabricated the incidents.

6

Dr Obukofe was originally suspended when the allegations first came to light, by the Interim Orders Panel of the GMC, in April 2009, an order which was subsequently extended.

The First Panel Hearing

7

Following the convictions, Dr Obukofe's case came before a Fitness to Practise Panel for the first time on 20 February 2012. On that occasion it was adjourned to allow his representative, Professor Salako, more time to prepare the case and the first substantive hearing then took place between 23 and 26 April 2012.

8

On 25 April 2012, the Panel issued its decision on the issue of impairment. The determination recorded that the Panel had already determined that it was bound by rule 34.3 of the GMC's (Fitness To Practise) Rules 2004 to treat the convictions as conclusive evidence that the three sexual assaults were committed.

9

It went on in the following terms:

"Your convictions are matters of concern to this Panel. The offences for which you were convicted are serious. Your behaviour was unacceptable. The Panel is of the view that your actions fell below the proper standards of conduct and behaviour expected of a doctor. It is of the view that convictions for such offences inevitably undermine the confidence that the public is entitled to place in the medical profession […] the Panel has concluded that in this case your convictions have brought the reputation of the profession into disrepute and have breached a fundamental tenet of the profession.

Furthermore, the Panel also concluded that public confidence in the medical profession could not be properly maintained in the absence of a finding of impairment given the offences of sexual assault.

The Panel recognises that these offences were committed in 2006/2007. Notwithstanding the passage of time the Panel nevertheless concludes that for the reasons outlined above, these offences were so serious that your fitness to practise is impaired after today's date."

10

The following day, 26 April 2012, the Panel issued its decision on the sanction to be imposed. It said this:

"In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken account of the GMC's indicative sanctions' guidance dated April 2009 and updated in August 2009. It has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect patients and the public interest although it may have a punitive effect.

Throughout its deliberations the Panel has borne in mind its responsibility to protect the public interest. This includes not only the protection of patients but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour."

Then it addressed the question as to whether a sanction of taking no action or imposing conditions of registration. Having rejected those it went on:

"The Panel next considered whether it would be sufficient to suspend your registration. In doing so the Panel noted paragraph 69 and 70 of the indicative sanctions' guidance and they were then set out."

A little later, the Panel went on:

"The Panel has already noted in its determination on impairment that there were a number of aggravating features in your case. These included but were not limited to your having abused your position as a doctor, the three offences of sexual assault, which were also committed in a clinical environment and one of the victims was only aged 17 years."

The Panel then referred to a number of mitigating features including the doctor's good character and testimonials that were received.

It continued:

"The Panel has noted that Professor Salako on your behalf accepted the validity of the certificate of conviction and admitted for the purpose of these proceedings the facts alleged against you.

Given the fact that you continued to deny the facts of the conviction the Panel accepted that it would be difficult for you to express remorse into the matters which had brought you before it. As you did not give oral evidence at the hearing the Panel has not been able to gauge your level of insight.

The Panel is of the view that these public proceedings will have provided you with a further opportunity to reflect on your behaviour and the standard of conduct your colleagues and the public are entitled to expect from registered medical practitioners. It considers that you do not pose a significant risk of repeating the behaviour in the future.

The Panel is of the view that your convictions, although serious, are not so serious as to be fundamentally incompatible with your continuing to be a registered medical practitioner.

Having regard to all of the above, the Panel is satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to prevent an otherwise competent doctor from potentially returning to medical practice in the future.

In all the circumstances, the Panel has determined to suspend your registration for the maximum period of 12 months. In deciding on the length of suspension the Panel considered that such a period was necessary to send a message to you, the public and the profession and to maintain the public's confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

The Panel also considered that this length of time will allow you a sufficient period to reflect upon the seriousness with which the Panel views your actions and gained the necessary insight to support a return to professional life."

11

That was not the end of the ruling on sanction. The Panel then went on to determine that there should be a review hearing and identify the structure within which that review hearing would take place. The Panel said this:

"The Panel next determined that a review hearing should be held in your case. At the review the Panel will need to be satisfied that you fully appreciated the gravity of offences, that you have not reoffended, that you have maintained your skills and knowledge and that patients will not be placed at risk by any potential resumption of practice.

[…]

"The Panel considers that it would be in your own interests, and it would also assist the next Panel reviewing your case for you to provide the following …"

There were then a series of bullet points, two of which were in these terms:

"Evidence to show that you have reflected on and gained insight into your actions."

And:

"Evidence as to your understanding of professional boundaries and how these could impact upon your relationships in the workplace."

12

The effect of the 12 months' suspension was set out in the Panel ruling itself, which identified that it was to take effect from 28 days after written notice was served upon Dr Obukofe. That was an application of the provisions in paragraph 10 of schedule 4 of the Medical Act. I am told that there was also an immediate suspension under section 38. The effect was that the suspension which was imposed, subject to subsequent review, took effect on 24 May 2012 and would expire on 23 May 2013. There was no appeal by Dr Obukofe...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Habib Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council (Scotland)
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court (Scotland)
    • December 14, 2016
    ...never been questioned save now, unwittingly, by the Extra Division. Take, for example, the case of Obukofe v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 408 (Admin). A medical practitioner appealed against the direction of (as it was then called) a Fitness to Practise Panel of the GMC to extend for......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT