Departure from foreign penalties
The appellant claimed that when giving its reasons the Panel failed to explain to the appellant so that he and others interested in the outcome could clearly understand why it had decided to impose a sanction that was more onerous than that imposed in France by the French courts and the ODM (the French equivalent of the GMC.)The appellant was convicted in France of two offences in relation to the deaths of his patients and given a suspended sentence and a fine and was banned from practising as a surgeon for three years (although not as a general physician). The ODM did not impose any additional sentence. When found guilty of misconduct by the ODM the doctor was struck off the medical register.
The learned judge said that she was not persuaded that the FTTP should have investigated the basis for the ODM decision. ‘It seems to me it carries the danger of requiring there to be an investigation of the penalty decision‑making process in another jurisdiction, something which I am not satisfied is properly part of, or ought properly to be part of the remit of the Fitness to Practise Panel. Their job is to assess matters in accordance with the General Medical Council's statutory purpose and good medical practice. Their purpose in holding hearings is to establish what the facts are in a particular case, to consider whether they support a finding of misconduct or impairment to practise and, if so what the appropriate sanction should be. They plainly must be informed by the appropriate facts. Those may of course, as they did in this case, include the facts of the convictions or the underlying facts in the French jurisdiction. But it does not seem to me to require that they need to understand why particular penalties were imposed, penalties which may have had punitive elements, in circumstances where it is not their job to issue punishment. To require them to have to give detailed reasons for departing from the decision of another body would, in my judgment, require investigative steps far beyond their remit, powers and competencies and, in my view, is unnecessary in any event…. I do not accept the submission that it is necessary for the Fitness to Practise Panel to specify reasons, whether numbered or otherwise, for imposing a decision or sanction different to that imposed by a body or bodies in another Member State.’
R (on the application of Stephane Alhy v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 2277 (Admin).
Categories: 6th edition, Chapter 14, updates