The Court of Appeal has dismissed Saqib Ahmed’s appeal against a finding of poor professional performance by the Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee and against the absence of a statutory appeal where the Council imposed the sanction of advice alone.
The finding concerned allegation 7(b), relating to the care of a 28-year-old patient, identified as BK, who was transferred to a regional hospital on or around 6 November 2012 with a large abdominal mass, abdominal and back pain, and weight loss. The allegation was that Ahmed failed to request basic tests, including blood, urine and kidney function tests. The Committee found the allegation proven beyond reasonable doubt and said it amounted to poor professional performance. The Council imposed advice without conditions.
Ahmed sought judicial review, arguing that the finding lacked an adequate evidential basis. The High Court refused relief in 2018. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that judicial review examines the lawfulness of a decision, not whether it was correct, and that the court should not turn the review into an appeal on the evidence.
The appeal court found that expert evidence from Dr Henry, including his written report incorporated into his oral evidence, supported the finding. Henry said tests should be checked on the patient’s arrival because a large mass could obstruct the ureters and impair kidney function. The court also found sufficient expert evidence concerning the urine test. It rejected Ahmed’s arguments that the relevant evidence was inadequate, that the finding was irrational or disproportionate, and that the Committee could not find poor professional performance on allegation 7(b) alone.
The court also dismissed Ahmed’s challenge to sections 71 and 75 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007. Section 75 did not provide an appeal to the High Court against advice, admonishment or censure alone. The court concluded that the Constitution did not require an appeal in these circumstances and that judicial review provided access to the courts to challenge the decision-making process. It also rejected the claim under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, finding that the hearing was fair and independent and that the sanction did not affect his right to practise.
The court held that Ahmed had not been granted leave to pursue an equality claim under Article 40.1 of the Constitution. It dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The court indicated that the respondents appeared entitled to their appeal costs, subject to any application within 21 days for a different order or a supplemental hearing.