Vadiya v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bennett,The Honourable Mr Justice Plender |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 3167 (Admin),[2007] EWHC 1497 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/10727/2007 CO/9525/2008 CO/7447/2008,Case No: CO/8430/2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 19 December 2008 |
[2007] EWHC 1497 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH ADMISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Bennett
Case No: CO/8430/2006
Robert Rhodes QC (instructed directly by, and) for the Appellant
Dinah Rose QC (instructed by GMC Legal) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 19 and 20 June 2007
D V (“the Appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (“the Panel”) given on 14 September 2006 whereby it found charges of serious professional misconduct proved and directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register.
The Appellant is now 50 years old. He qualified as a registered medical practitioner in India. In 1996 he was employed by the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”) at its District Hospital in Grantham as a staff grade physician. His speciality was gastro-enterology.
Grantham Hospital was then and still is a multi-racial hospital with a high proportion of medical staff coming from different ethnic backgrounds. It was said by Counsel, for the General Medical Council (“GMC”) in opening the case before the Panel, that the Appellant did not find it easy to work in such an environment and developed an animosity to certain medical colleagues from Sri Lanka.
The charges adjudicated upon by the Panel were as follows. Charge 1 specified the Appellant's medical employment. Charges 2 to 4 allege that on 21 May 1999 the Appellant received a letter from Ms Woodford of the Centre for Postgraduate Education in respect of the working hours of junior doctors. The Appellant substituted for his name on that letter that of a consultant, D Wijaywardhana (“D Wijay”) and forwarded the letter to D Wijay. The Panel found those facts proved and that they amounted to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, which facts were not only misleading but also were intended to mislead.
Charges 5 to 8 alleged that between 18 November 1999 and 1 January 2001 the Trust had suspended the Appellant on full pay, that he was informed he should not undertake paid employment elsewhere during the suspension, but that he did so by working for the East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust and the Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust. The Panel found that the facts were proved and that they amounted to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct.
Charges 9 to 16 alleged:
(i) On 2 March 2001 the Appellant and D A W (“D A”), a Senior House Officer, had a conversation during which the Appellant raised his voice and questioned the validity of Sri Lankan medical training. The Panel found the facts proved and that the Appellant's conduct was inappropriate, unprofessional, that the raising of his voice was intimidating and that the Appellant's questioning of the validity of Sri Lankan medical training was racially motivated.
(ii) On 9 March 2001 the Appellant wrote a letter headed “An incident on Friday 2 March 2001” to D B, the Acting Clinical Director of the Trust, in which the Appellant made adverse comments about D A's capabilities and stated “I had seen the quality [or lack of it] of training/practice from Sri Lanka over the past few years [but was not aware it was a national trend …]”. It was alleged that the Appellant circulated copies to other doctors, nursing staff, and left copies in Admission and/or the Critical Care Unit. The Panel found the facts proved re the letter, found proved that the Appellant had circulated it to other doctors but found not proved either that he had circulated copies to nursing staff or that he had left copies in Administration and/or the Critical Care Unit. The Panel found his conduct to be inappropriate and unprofessional.
(iii) On 9 March 2001 the Appellant wrote a further letter to D B headed “Treatment of patients with Acute MI”. The letter made adverse comments about D A's management of a patient and suggested that D A was “indulging in proxy trade-unionism and industrial blackmail”. Copies of the letter, it was said, were circulated by the Appellant to other doctors, to nursing staff including Staff Nurse Naylor, and copies were left in Admission and the Critical Care Unit. The Panel found proved the facts about the letter, that copies had been circulated to other doctors and nurses, including Mrs Naylor, but found not proved that copies had been left in Admission and the Critical Care Unit. The panel found the Appellant's conduct to be inappropriate and unprofessional, and so far as copies were circulated to nurses to be intimidating and intended to intimidate.
(iv) On or about 29 March 2001 D K, a Senior House Officer, was one of nine junior doctors who signed a letter to D B raising concerns about the conduct of the Appellant. The Appellant told D K that if she did not withdraw his signature from the letter he would make sure that she did not get a job in his country. The Panel found the facts proved and that the Appellant's conduct was inappropriate, unprofessional, intimidating and intended to intimidate.
(v) On or about 9 May 2001 the Appellant and Ms S, the Bed Manager, had a conversation during which the Appellant raised his voice and made adverse comments about her performance. The Panel found the facts proved and that the Appellant's conduct was inappropriate, unprofessional, intimidating and intended to intimidate.
(vi) From about 10 May 2001 and 31 July 2001, and again from 19 September 2002 to 4 April 2003 the Appellant was suspended by the Trust on full pay. The Appellant was told that he should not take paid work elsewhere during his suspension but he did so with Quality Locums and Rainbow Medical Services. The Panel found the facts proved and that the Appellant's conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional.
(vii) Finally, that the Appellant had failed to disclose a criminal conviction (see paragraph 7 below) to the Trust. The Panel found that proved.
On 19 April 2002 the Appellant was convicted of an offence by the Worcester Magistrates' Court under s.5 of the Public Order Act, 1986. The Appellant appealed. At the Crown Court, where the Appellant was present but unrepresented, the Court and the prosecution were under the wrong impression that he had been convicted under s.4A of the 1986 Act and s.31(1b) of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1988 i.e. a racially aggravated offence. On 12 July his appeal was dismissed. On 30 July the CPS notified the GMC of the conviction. In the end the Appellant was compelled to issue proceedings in the Divisional Court for a quashing order. The conviction for the racially aggravated offence was quashed by the Divisional Court in the autumn of 2005. His appeal against the conviction under s.5 of the 1986 Act was fixed for 17 November 2006 when it was allowed with costs.
In April 2003 the Appellant's employment with the Trust was terminated.
On 4 December 2003 the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the GMC referred the Appellant's case to the Professional Conduct Committee. On 14 June 2004 the Appellant was told that the Preliminary Proceedings Committee had decided to refer his case to the Professional Conduct Committee. On 7 July 2005 the GMC wrote to the Appellant that his case would be heard by the Panel in Manchester for 10 Days starting on 30 January 2006. The Appellant was strongly advised in the letter to obtain legal advice and representation. The Appellant notified the GMC that these dates were not suitable. The GMC then wrote to the Appellant on 12 October 2005 that his case was provisionally listed from 22 May to 5 June 2006. The Appellant did not respond. On 28 October the GMC wrote to the Appellant advising him of the new dates for hearing i.e. 5 June to 16 June 2006.
On 8 November the Appellant stated that the proposed dates were inconvenient and that he would not be available “during the months of next summer until September at the earliest”.
On 6 April 2006 the Appellant was informed that the new dates would be for 5 days from 11 September 2006. It was stressed that the case needed to be heard as soon as possible.
On 5 May 2006 the GMC reminded the Appellant that his case would be heard for 5 days from 11 September 2006. It was pointed out that the GMC had tried to arrange the hearing on several occasions but that the Appellant had previously said he was unable to attend, that the case was outstanding since 2002, and that it was in the public interest, as well as the Appellant's, for it to be heard at the next available opportunity.
On 5 June, Eversheds, instructed by the GMC, reminded the Appellant of the dates of the hearing. In the last paragraph of their letter Eversheds said they would send to the Appellant by the end of June the charges and the evidence upon which the GMC would rely. A formal notice of charges would be sent 28 days before the hearing as required by the Rules.
On 29 June 2006 Eversheds sent the “disclosure bundle” and the Daft notice of inquiry containing the Daft charges. The disclosure bundle included the evidence upon which the GMC was proposing to rely at the hearing. The letter again reminded the Appellant of the dates of the hearing.
On 5 July 2006 the Appellant spoke to Eversheds. He said he had received the bundle and Daft charges and that he had instructed MacLaren Britton, solicitors, to act for him. He asked for a bundle to be sent to his solicitors. It is to be noted that the Appellant did not instruct solicitors until after, indeed well after, the hearing had been fixed for 11 September.
On 10 July 2006 Eversheds sent the bundle to MacLaren Britton and told them that the case was listed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Medical Council v Vaidya
...court after a two day hearing by Plender J, who awarded the GMC its costs of defending the appeal: Vaidya v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 3167 Admin. 10 Dr Vaidya then issued a further set of High Court proceedings, referred to as claim 7 at paragraph 15 of the GMC's witness statement......