Roberts (Alan) Application for Judicial Review (leave stage)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McBride J |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 2025 |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] NIKB 21 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2025] NIKB 21
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McB12714
ICOS No: 23/094510/01
Delivered: 26/03/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
__________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
__________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ALAN ROBERTS
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
ALAN ROBERTS
Proposed Applicant;
and
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Proposed Respondent;
and
PROFESSOR IAN YOUNG
Notice Party.
__________
Mr McQuitty KC (instructed by Phoenix Law, Solicitors) for the Proposed Applicant
Mr McAteer KC (instructed by Cleaver Fulton Rankin), Solicitors
for the Proposed Respondent
Mr McGleenan KC (instructed by Carson McDowell Solicitors) for the Notice Party
___________
McBRIDE J
Application
[1] The proposed applicant, Mr Alan Roberts, seeks leave to judicially review two
related decisions of the General Medical Council (“GMC”) in which the GMC
decided not to refer allegations about Professor Ian Young to the GMC Tribunal for
formal adjudication.
[2] The first impugned decision was made under Rule 8 of the GMC (Fitness to
Practice) Rules 2004 (“the 2004 Rules”) on 14 February 2023, when the case
examiners (“case examiners”) decided not to refer allegations against
2
Professor Young to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for
adjudication - (“the Rule 8 decision”).
[3] The second impugned decision was made by the GMC assistant registrar
under Rule 12 of the 2004 Rules, when the assistant registrar decided that there were
no grounds to review the Rule 8 decision - (“the Rule 12 decision”).
[4] It was agreed by the parties that there should be a rolled-up hearing.
Representation
[5] Mr Roberts was represented by Mr McQuitty KC. The GMC was represented
by Mr McAteer KC and Professor Ian Young was represented by Mr McGleenan
KC.
[6] The court wishes to express its thanks to all parties for their detailed and
well-researched skeleton arguments which proved to be of much assistance to the
court.
The parties
[7] The proposed applicant (referred to in this judgment as “the applicant”) is the
father of Claire Roberts, who died in the Royal Victoria Hospital for Sick Children on
23 October 1996.
[8] The proposed respondent is the GMC (referred to in this judgment as “the
respondent).
[9] The challenge to the decisions of the GMC not to refer the allegations to a
Tribunal are of direct consequence to Professor Ian Young and, therefore, he was
joined as a notice party. Professor Young was not involved in Claire’s clinical care
but was asked by Dr Michael McBride, Medical Director, to review the records and
advise as to whether hyponatremia and fluid balance could have played a part in
Claire’s death. Professor Young held joint appointments as an academic at Queen’s
University Belfast and as a clinician with the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust. He
was a consultant in clinical biochemistry.
Order 53 Statement
[10] Mr Roberts challenges both the Rule 8 and Rule 12 decisions and seeks an
order of certiorari quashing the impugned decisions; a declaration that the
impugned decisions are ultra vires and an order of mandamus compelling the GMC
to conduct a de novo investigation or alternatively a de novo reconsideration of the
Rule 12 decision by an independent assistant registrar.
3
The grounds of challenge
[11] The grounds of challenge set out in the Order 53 statement, in summary are:
(a) Misapplication of the legal test for dishonesty.
(b) Failure to adhere to GMC policy.
(c) Failure to adjudicate upon specific allegations which was a material error.
(d) Failure to appreciate the fundamental factual conflict in the case.
(e) Failure to take into account relevant factors/taking into account irrelevant
factors.
(f) Wednesbury unreasonableness.
(g) Failing to find any grounds for a formal review under Rule 12.
[12] At the hearing, Mr McQuitty helpfully refined the grounds of challenge as
follows:
(a) Failure to adhere to GMC policy regarding the realistic prospects test.
(b) Misapplication of the legal test for dishonesty.
(c) Failure to adjudicate upon specific allegations of dishonesty which amounted
to a material error.
[13] The central tenet of the applicant’s challenge is that Professor Young believed
at the time he conducted the review of Claire’s notes and records in 2004, that there
was clinical mismanagement because the treating doctors failed to carry out a repeat
blood test on the morning of 22 October 1996 (“repeat blood test”). The applicant
therefore contends that Professor Young was dishonest when he failed to disclose
this and or gave misleading information when he met the parents on 7 December
2004 (“parents’ meeting”); when he contributed to a letter sent to the parents on
12 January 2004 (“the letter”); and when he gave evidence to the inquest in 2006
(“the inquest”).
[14] The mainstay of the applicant’s criticism of the GMC decisions is that they
failed to refer the case to the Tribunal in circumstances where, on the same materials,
a public inquiry into the events surrounding and following the deaths of a number
of children including Claire Roberts, made adverse findings against Professor Young
which the applicant submits established a prima facie case of dishonesty. The
applicant contends that this was not something the GMC could properly displace
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting