England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		14th November 2005

1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: This is a statutory appeal against a decision of the GMC's Interim Orders Panel on 20th September 2005 that the registration of the claimant, Dr Bari, should be suspended for a further period. The claimant was first suspended by what was then the Interim Orders Committee of the GMC on 13th May 2004. The Committee reviewed the matter on 13th October 2004 and concluded that the suspension, which was for a period of 18 months, should be continued. The claimant appealed against that decision.
2. In the normal course of events, the Interim Orders Panel reviewed the order on 31st March 2005 and directed that the suspension should remain in place. That was the position when the matter came before me on 17th June 2005. At that stage, there was an issue as to whether the claimant was prepared to challenge the decision of 31st March 2005 and whether he was prepared to undergo an assessment, but a Fitness to Practise Panel was due to consider the case on 3rd August 2005.
3. So I adjourned the appeal pending the outcome of the decision of that Committee, and said that if no application to restore the appeal to the list had been made by early in September, then the appeal should be treated as having been dismissed. Dr Bari has asked that the appeal be restored to the list. In the interim, the Fitness to Practise Panel considered the case on 3rd August and, following the claimant's agreement to undergo a performance assessment, it adjourned the Fitness to Practise hearing until January 2006 to allow the assessment to be completed. That January date has subsequently been put back to March 2006. Since this is one of those cases where it is the doctor's performance that is in issue rather than the doctor's conduct, the outcome of the Fitness to Practise hearing will resolve the issue one way or the other.
4. The Interim Orders Panel therefore had that background when they came to consider the matter on 20th September 2005. Without objection by Mr Clarke on behalf of the GMC, I have permitted Dr Bari to amend his grounds of challenge so that he challenges what is now the effective decision, that taken on the 20th September 2005. Clearly there would be no point in challenging the earlier decisions in October 2004 or March 2005, since they have now been overtaken by the decision of 20th September.
5. Although Dr Bari contends that the decision on 20th September was illegal and that the GMC have no foundation whatsoever and no reason for continuing the suspension, bearing in mind that he had agreed to undergo an assessment and it is his contention that it was his refusal to undergo an assessment that led to the suspension originally, I have to say that having read the decision of the Interim Orders Panel, it is plain that they had good grounds for continuing the suspension.
6. What they said in part was this:

"The Panel has reviewed the order today. In doing so, it has considered afresh the information before it previously and now presented to it today, this includes the complaints received from Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital's NHS Trust and Peterborough Hospital's NHS Trust, which indicate that there may be serious deficiencies in your performance in the areas of communication and practice. The Panel has also taken into account your detailed written observations regarding these complaints. It has also taken into consideration the submissions made by Mr Ferguson, counsel on behalf of the GMC, and your own evidence."

The Panel then referred to the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel that there should be a hearing in January 2006 to allow the assessment of the claimant's performance to be completed, and continued:

"The Panel are satisfied that it continues to be necessary for the protection of members of the public, in the public interests and in your own interests, for your registration to remain suspended. It is therefore directed that the order imposed in May 2004 should remain in place.

"In reaching its decision, the Panel has determined that there is sufficient information before it that your fitness to practice may be impaired as a result of serious allegations concerning your professional performance made against you. The Panel has also taken into account the correspondence from you to the GMC and other organisations that over a period of time has become increasingly unprofessional, offensive and threatening. The Panel has also received information relating to your failure to respect and protect confidential information, and your failure to work with colleagues in the way that best serves patients's interests. The Panel considers that if these matters were to be substantiated, they would indicate that you could pose a risk to patients and that the confidence the public are entitled to place in the medical profession and its practitioners would be seriously undermined."

7. The Panel then said that it had taken into account the issue of proportionality and had concluded that there were no conditions that would adequately protect the members of the public or provide sufficient safeguards for the public interest, or be in the claimant's own interests. So it was satisfied that suspension was a precautionary response.
8. Before me, Dr Bari presented a written statement which dealt with a great deal of the historical background as he perceives it, but his written submissions did not address the question why the decision of 20th September 2005 was in error. When I asked him to explain why there was any error in that decision, he explained to me his views about the merits of the complaint from the Peterborough Hospital's NHS Trust.
9. It is clear to me that Dr Bari is simply unable to appreciate that whilst he considers that these complaints about his professional performance are unfounded, that is a matter that the GMC is entitled to wish to investigate, and his fitness to practise as a doctor will be the subject of a performance assessment.
10. I would simply say this: on the face of it, at least two of the qualities required by a medical practitioner are an ability to communicate clearly and the ability to make logical and dispassionate decisions. I have to say that having listened to Dr Bari very carefully, I myself have grave doubts about his communication skills and also about the quality of his decision making; I say that because this is a statutory appeal, and while I would not normally intervene in the case of a judgment made by medical practitioners about another medical practitioner, I am entitled to substitute my own view. I therefore indicate that in so far as the Panel expressed concerns about areas of communication and the manner in which Dr Bari has communicated with the GMC, then I would echo those concerns.
11. I can see nothing in the material before me which would suggest that the decision of the Interim Orders Panel on 20th September 2005, that there should be a further period of suspension, was in error in any way. On any basis, suspension should continue until the process of performance assessment has been completed and the matter has gone back to the Fitness to Practise Panel. If it decides that there are no concerns about the claimant's performance, that will be the end of that matter. If on the other hand it concludes that there are concerns, then it can make the appropriate directions and the need for interim suspension will simply fall away.
12. So for these reasons, whilst I am prepared to allow Dr Bari to challenge the decision of 20th September 2005, I dismiss the appeal. This is not a case where I am dismissing the appeal because I am not persuaded that it is wrong, I am dismissing it because I am entirely satisfied that it was the correct thing to do on the information available to the Interim Orders Panel on 20th September.
13. So the appeal is dismissed. Thank you.