Mohammad Adil v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Swift |
| Judgment Date | 05 April 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 797 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2640/2022 |
[2023] EWHC 797 (Admin)
Mr Justice Swift
Case No: CO/2640/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Francis Hoar (instructed by PJH Law) for the Applicant
Martin Forde KC (instructed by GMC Legal) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 15 February 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 5 April 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
A. Introduction
Mohammad Adil appeals against decisions of the Medical Practitioners' Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made in June 2022. At the time of the events relevant to the Tribunal's decision Mr Adil worked as a locum consultant colorectal surgeon, first at the Chesterfield Hospital and then at the North Manchester Hospital NHS Trust.
The Tribunal is a committee of the General Medical Council (“the GMC”), the Respondent to this appeal as provided for by section 40(9) of the Medical Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). The Tribunal's decisions were taken in exercise of its power under section 35D of the 1983 Act; this appeal is brought under section 40 of that Act. The Tribunal took four decisions: a Determination on the Facts (made on 21 June 2022); a Determination on Impairment (made 27 June 2022); a Determination on Sanction (made on 29 June 2022); and a Determination on Immediate Order (also made on 29 June 2022). By its Determination on the Facts the Tribunal reached conclusions on whether the allegations made against Mr Adil were proved. The Determination on Impairment concerned whether what had happened amounted to misconduct and was such as to amount to an impairment of Mr Adil's fitness to practise. The final two decisions considered the penalty to be imposed. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Adil's registration in the register of medical professionals should be suspended for six months and that immediate suspension was necessary – i.e., that “in order to protect public confidence in the medical profession” Mr Adil would be suspended pending any appeal against the substantive suspension order.
(1) The allegations against Mr Adil and the Tribunal's conclusions .
The allegations against Mr Adil fell into two broad groups. The first group concerned treatment he had provided at the Chesterfield Hospital in November 2019 to a patient referred to as Patient A. There were six such allegations. In its Determination on the Facts, the Tribunal concluded that only three of these allegations were proved. At the Determination of Impairment stage, the Tribunal concluded that none of those three matters amounted to misconduct and that none demonstrated any impairment of Mr Adil's fitness to practise. None of these matters is therefore the subject of this appeal.
The second group of allegations concerned matters that took place when Mr Adil worked at the North Manchester Hospital NHS Trust. These allegations did not concern treatment given to any patient, but rather Mr Adil's appearances in videos published on YouTube between April 2020 and October 2020. The allegations were set out as follows in what has been referred to before me as the ‘charge-sheet’ (which the Tribunal set out in full in the body of its Determination on the Facts).
“2. Between April 2020 and October 2020, you appeared in videos that were uploaded to video sharing platforms in which you said that:
a. the Sars-CoV-2 virus and/or Covid-19 disease do not exist or words to that effect;
b. the Covid 19 pandemic is a conspiracy brought by the United Kingdom, Israel and America or words to that effect;
c. the Covid-19 pandemic is a multibillion scam which was being manipulated for the benefit of:
i. Bill Gates;
ii. pharmaceutical companies;
iii. the John Hopkins Medical Institute of Massachusetts;
iv. the World Health Organisation,
or words to that effect;
d. the Covid-19 pandemic was being used to impose a new world order or words to that effect;
e. the Sars-CoV-2 virus was made as part of a wider global conspiracy or words to that effect;
f. Bill Gates infected the entire world with Sars-CoV-2 in order to sell vaccines or words to that effect;
g. Covid-19 vaccines:
i. would be given to everyone, by force if necessary;
ii. could potentially contain microchips that affect the human body and further the 5G mobile phone technology agenda;
iii. will transform human psychology and beliefs;
iv. could be used to control and/or reduce the world's population,
or words to that effect.
3. In the videos referred to at paragraph 2, you used your position as a doctor in the UK on one or more occasion, to promote your opinion.
4. Your actions as referred to at paragraph 2:
a. undermined public health, and/or;
b. were contrary to widely accepted medical opinion, and/or;
c. undermined public confidence in the medical profession.
5. On or around 12 May 2020 you said to your responsible officer, Professor B, that you had and/or would remove the videos referred to at paragraph 2 from video sharing platforms or words to that effect.
6. Further to the discussions with Professor B referred to at paragraph 5, you subsequently:
a. Failed to remove the videos;
b. appeared in further videos which were uploaded to video sharing platforms and in which you made comments as referred to at paragraph 2.”
Mr Adil did not dispute what he had said in the videos. The Tribunal found each of the allegations at paragraph 2 proved. At paragraphs 34 – 37 of its Determination on the Facts the Tribunal stated as follows:
“34. The Tribunal considered each paragraph and sub-paragraph of Paragraph 2 and the statements made as set out in the Allegation. It considered the whole of Paragraph 2 in the context of the transcripts and videos provided in evidence.
35. The Tribunal considered all the transcripts in full and watched a number of the videos. It noted that all the videos related to the period between April 2020 and October 2020, as set out in the stem of Paragraph 2 of the Allegation. The GMC had provided a colour coded schedule of transcript page numbers, which assisted the Tribunal in locating some of the most pertinent comments. However, the Tribunal also identified numerous other relevant references in the transcripts, to which its attention had not specifically been drawn by the GMC in the schedule.
36. The Tribunal took into account Mr Adil's remarks throughout the proceedings to date, in which he admitted he had made the statements and accepted that he had expressed these views at that time. He now regretted making the comments and also disagreed with the comments he had made in the videos.
37. The Tribunal carefully considered the wording of the Allegation, which as Mr Kitching had submitted on behalf of the GMC, did not contain verbatim quotations from the videos, but summarised and amalgamated the statements made to reflect the meaning of what was being said in the same or similar words to that effect. The Tribunal was satisfied that, in relation to each sub-paragraph of Paragraph 2 of the Allegation, the wording correctly characterised the statements being made in the videos. It had seen evidence in the transcripts, and in the videos it had viewed, in support of each sub-paragraph of Paragraph 2 of the Allegation. It was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Adil had made the statements alleged.”
So far as concerns the complaint that Mr Adil had used his position as a doctor to promote these opinions (the allegation at paragraph 3 of the charge sheet), the Tribunal referred to the transcripts of videos uploaded on 3 June 2020 and 6 September 2020 concluding it was “in no doubt” that the allegation was proved.
The Tribunal further concluded that the complaints at paragraph 4 of the charge sheet were proved. Those matters were by way of conclusions following from the complaints of fact listed at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the charge-sheet. The material parts of the Tribunal's decision were as follows:
“ Paragraph 4a
46. The gravity of the impact of the coronavirus and Covid-19 on public health was being explained on a daily basis to the public and disseminated to medical professionals. The general public was required to comply with the restrictions and the messages were provided to set out the rationale for the restrictions and the reasons compliance was required. Statements of the kind set out in Paragraph 2 of the Allegation formed no part of the public health messages being provided through official channels. In the Tribunal's view they ran counter to the public health messages being disseminated at the time.
47. As it had already determined, Mr Adil had used his position as a doctor in the UK to promote his opinions. In the Tribunal's view, and in the context of the status of the pandemic at the time, hearing such opinions expressed by an NHS consultant surgeon would, on the balance of probabilities, have the effect of undermining public health. One of the key government messages at the time was that compliance with restrictions for required to ‘Protect the NHS’. The Tribunal considered that an NHS consultant asserting as fact such statements of the kind as set out in Paragraph 2 of the Allegation undermined important public health messages.
48. The Tribunal was in no doubt that, in the context of the status of the pandemic at the time and Mr Adil's declared credentials in the videos, it was more likely than not that public health was undermined by his comments.
…
Paragraph 4b
50. As the Tribunal has already said, during the early days of the pandemic medical information and opinion was being disseminated in daily bulletins held by the UK government and its senior clinical and scientific advisors, including the Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Chief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohammed Adil v General Medical Council
...OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT MR JUSTICE SWIFT [2023] EWHC 797 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Francis Hoar and Savannah Laurent (instructed by PJH Law Solicitors) for the Martin Forde ......