The High Court has decided in principle to accept undertakings from an anonymised doctor instead of suspending his medical registration while criminal and fitness-to-practise proceedings remain pending. The court left the undertakings’ precise terms to be settled after further submissions from the Medical Council and the doctor.
In a judgment delivered on 28 February 2023, President of the High Court Mr Justice David Barniville said the Council was entitled, and obliged, to seek interim suspension orders under section 60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 to protect the public. But he concluded that measures short of suspension could address the Council’s concerns.
The Council had sought an order suspending the doctor’s registration and prohibiting him from practising until further regulatory steps were completed. It argued that the allegations were extremely serious and that the undertaking already given by the doctor was not enough to protect the public, particularly because compliance with his chaperone arrangements would be difficult to supervise.
The doctor denied the allegations and is defending criminal proceedings. He offered to continue his undertaking not to examine female patients without a chaperone. He also pointed to a chaperone policy and a two-stage consent process introduced at his clinic. The court did not determine the truth of the allegations, which it said were matters for the criminal trial, and stressed that the prosecution alone did not make suspension inevitable.
The judge said the required undertakings must include a ban on examining female patients without a chaperone, a strict examination consent policy, regular updates to the Council about the criminal proceedings, and immediate notification of any further allegations. They must also include regular disclosure to the Council of the identities and details of the chaperones. The judge said the court order should allow either side to return at short notice.
The court also concluded that the Council should be permitted to tell specified public bodies the fact and terms of the undertakings, answer requests accurately about the doctor’s registration status, and record the undertakings on its public-facing register.
The judgment did not set out the final terms of the undertakings or conclude the section 60 application with a final order. The matter was to return for further submissions to settle the order. The doctor’s existing undertaking to the court, not to examine female patients without a chaperone, remained in place at the date of judgment.