Dr Mukhlis Aziz Abid Simawi v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Julian Knowles |
| Judgment Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 2168 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4998/2019 |
| Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2020] EWHC 2168 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
Manchester Civil Justice Centre
1 Bridge Street West, Manchester, M60 9DJ
Mr Justice Julian Knowles
Case No: CO/4998/2019
Mary O'Rourke QC (instructed by Burton Copeland LLP) for the Appellant
Alexis Hearnden (instructed by GMC Legal) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 15 July 2020
Approved Judgment
The Honourable
Introduction
This is the Appellant's appeal against the sanction imposed upon him on 21 November 2019 by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (the Tribunal). The sanction was a nine-month suspension of his medical registration pursuant to s 35D(2)(b) of the Medical Act 1983 (MA 1983). The Tribunal also gave a direction that the suspension period be reviewed prior to its expiry, pursuant to s 35D(4A).
There is no challenge to the findings of fact which the Tribunal made, nor to its determination that the Appellant's fitness to practice was impaired as a result. I am solely concerned with the length of the suspension and the Tribunal's direction for a review.
In summary, Ms O'Rourke QC for the Appellant submitted that nine months' suspension was too long in the all the circumstances, and that there was no proper basis for the Tribunal to have directed a review. Ms Hearnden for the GMC argued that these sanctions were justified.
The factual background
Summary
The sanction was imposed following two findings of dishonesty made by the Tribunal against the Appellant. The findings did not relate to patient care and there was no suggestion that patients were put at risk.
In December 2016 the Appellant accepted an offer of employment as an anaesthetist based at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (King's) in December 2016 and commenced employment in February 2017. Shortly after he started, concerns were raised by the Anaesthetics Delivery Manager about a study leave application submitted by the Appellant seeking leave to attend a course in Dresden – Leginica between 20–27 February 2017.
The GMC's central case was that the Appellant made the study leave application for a conference that did not exist, and that he later submitted false documents in support of his attendance, including a false attendance certificate, false conference programme and fabricated email correspondence.
It was further alleged that the Appellant submitted false documents to an Interim Orders Tribunal.
In December 2017 the Appellant submitted an application for a post of Senior Clinical Fellow in Anaesthesia at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Chelsea and Westminster). The GMC further alleged that the Appellant failed to disclose to Chelsea and Westminster the fact that he had been subject to a GMC investigation and that conditions had been imposed on his registration at an Interim Orders Tribunal.
The Appellant was represented by counsel before the Tribunal. Neither the doctor nor his counsel attended from Day 10 (when the determination on impairment was announced). The Appellant's counsel submitted written submissions on his behalf.
Allegations
The allegations against the Appellant were lengthy, as follows:
“ Study Leave Application
1. After accepting an offer of employment at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) in or around December 2016, you sent an email to Dr A on 31 December 2016 advising him that you:
a. would be abroad attending a conference between 20 and 27 February 2017; Admitted and found proved
b. had made arrangements to attend the conference in early 2016. Admitted and found proved
2. On 5 January 2017 you sent an email to Ms B informing her that you would be attending a conference and asked for it to be accommodated on your rota as leave. Admitted and found proved
3. You knew that you had not arranged to attend a conference between 20 and 27 February 2017. To be determined
4. Your actions at paragraph 1 and 2 were dishonest by reason of paragraph 3. To be determined
5. On or around 13 February 2017 you submitted to the Trust:
a. an application for study leave for a conference called ‘5th Symposium in Anaesthetics and ICM’ in Dresden-Legnica, Germany, (‘the Dresden Conference’); To be determined
b. email confirmation from Mr C at ‘support@ccage.com’ dated 6 September 2016 purporting to be for registration and payment to attend the Dresden Conference; To be determined
c. a programme purporting to be for the Dresden Conference (‘the Dresden Programme’). To be determined
6. You knew that the documents that you submitted as described at paragraph 5 above were falsified in that you knew that the:
a. Dresden Conference was fabricated; To be determined
b. email address of Mr C was not in use; To be determined
c. organisation ‘ccage’ did not exist; To be determined
d. Dresden Programme was a copy of another conference programme. To be determined
7. Your actions described at paragraph 5 were dishonest by reason of paragraph 6. To be determined
8. You took study leave from the Trust for the Dresden Conference. To be determined
9. Your action described at paragraph 8 was dishonest by reason of paragraph 6(a). To be determined.”
Investigation by the Trust
10. On or around 1 March 2017 you confirmed to the Trust that:
a. you had attended a conference; Admitted and found proved
b. the conference location had been changed to take place in Krakow, Poland (‘the Krakow Conference’). Admitted and found proved
11. Your statements as described at paragraph 10 were:
a. untrue; To be determined
b. known by you to be untrue. To be determined
12. Your actions at paragraph 10 were dishonest by reason of paragraph 11. To be determined
13. On 1 March 2017 you sent an email to Dr D in which you:
a. attached a document that purported to be an attendance certificate for the Krakow Conference (‘the Certificate’), which:
i. was signed and dated 27 February 2017; Admitted and found proved
ii. included a stamp logo of the District Medical Chamber in Krakow (‘the Chamber’); Amended under Rule 17(6) Admitted and found proved
b. told Dr D that you were ‘a member of Polish Medical Chamber in Krakow’, or words to that effect. Admitted and found proved
14. You knew that the Certificate was falsified in that the Chamber did not:
a. organise and/or co-organise the Krakow Conference; To be determined
b. issue the Certificate; To be determined
c. sign the Certificate; To be determined
d. stamp the Certificate. authorise the use of their logo Amended under Rule 17(6); To be determined
15. You knew that the statement as set out at paragraph 13(b) above was untrue in that you knew that you were not a member of a Medical Chamber in Poland at that time. To be determined
16. Your actions described at paragraph:
a. (13a) were dishonest by reason of paragraph 14; To be determined
b. (13b) were dishonest by reason of paragraph 15. To be determined
17. On or around 1 June 2017 you submitted to the Trust a document purporting to be a programme for the Krakow Conference (‘the Krakow Programme’). Admitted and found proved’ or ‘To be determined’ Withdrawn by the GMC
18. On or around 20 October 2017 you submitted to the Trust a:
a. Google search screenshot purporting to show the Krakow Conference website, www.krakow-anaesthesia.pl; Admitted and found proved
b. further copy of the document purporting to be a programme for the Krakow Conference (‘the Krakow Programme’); Amended under Rule 17(6): To be determined
c. document purporting to be a transaction confirmation for the Krakow Conference. Admitted and found proved
19. You knew that the documents that you submitted as described at paragraph s 17 and/or 18 above were falsified in that you knew that the Amended under Rule 17(6) a. website described at paragraph 18
a. was created after 27 February 2017; To be determined
b. Krakow Programme content was a copy of one or more other conference programmes; To be determined
c. Krakow Conference did not take place. To be determined
20. Your actions described at paragraph 17 and/or 18 were dishonest by reason of paragraph 19. Amended under Rule 17(6); To be determined
21. On 25 July 2017 you informed Ms B by text message that the Trust rota was incorrect as your leave between 20 and 27 February 2017 was annual leave as you were not entitled to study leave at the Trust, or words to that effect. Admitted and found proved
22. Your statement as described at paragraph 21 was untrue in that you:
a. knew that you were entitled to study leave as set out in the Trust's Terms and Conditions, which you had signed; To be determined
b. had submitted an application for study leave as described at paragraph 5(a) above. To be determined
23. Your actions as described at paragraph 21 were dishonest by reason of paragraph 22. To be determined
Interim Orders Tribunal
24. On 29 November 2017 you submitted a defence bundle to the GMC for the purpose of an Interim Orders Tribunal (‘IOT’), which included emails dated 19 October 2017 from:
a. Mr C; Admitted and found proved
b. Ms E. Admitted and found proved
25. You knew that the emails described at paragraphs 24(a) and 24(b) above contained false information as neither the Dresden Conference nor Krakow Conference took place. To be determined
26. Your actions as described at paragraph 24 were dishonest by reason of paragraph 25. To be determined
Failure to disclose GMC Investigation and Interim Order
27. On 20 December 2017 you submitted an application for a post of Senior Clinical Fellow in Anaesthetics at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in which you answered ‘No’ to the question:
a. ‘Are you currently subject to a fitness to practise investigation and/or proceedings of any nature by a regulatory or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sekinat Bakare v General Medical Council
...the healthcare professions. Much of the relevant case-law in this area was helpfully summarised by Julian Knowles J in Simawi v GMC [2020] EWHC 2168 (Admin) at [46ff]: “46. First, the decision of Carr J in Professional Standards Authority v Health Care Professions Council and another [201......