General Medical Council v Adeogba; General Medical Council v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162
‘In each of two cases, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the General Medical Council (“the GMC”) against the respondent doctor. In neither case did the doctor concerned attend the disciplinary hearing. In the first case the doctor did not answer correspondence and did not attend the hearing because, knowing of the investigation and his time limited suspension, he left the United Kingdom and then failed to access the only means the GMC had to communicate with him. In the second case the doctor challenged the disciplinary process and refused to participate until his concerns had been addressed. Having considered the available evidence as to the reasons for non-attendance, in each case the separately constituted fitness to practise panel (“the panel”) determined to continue in the doctor’s absence under rule 31 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 and, having examined and to some extent tested the evidence supporting the complaint, found the case proved in whole or in part. Both doctors were erased from the medical register. On appeal by the doctor in the first case, the judge, having admitted fresh evidence as to the reason for non-attendance, determined that the doctor could not have been aware of the hearing date and that the panel had been wrong to proceed in his absence. On appeal by the doctor in the second case, the judge found that there was no basis for the panel to conclude that the doctor would not attend in future if the matter were adjourned and had been wrong to proceed in his absence. In both cases, fresh hearings were ordered.’
WLR Daily, 16th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
