The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

Patel v. General Medical Council (GMC) [2003] UKPC 16 (27 January 2003)



Privy Council Appeal No. 48 of 2002

Dr. Rajnikant Kantilal Patel Appellant

v.

The General Medical Council Respondent

FROM

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

---------------

REASONS FOR REPORT OF THE LORDS OF THE

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL OF THE

27th January 2003, Delivered the 17th February 2003

------------------

Present at the hearing:-



Lord Steyn

Sir Andrew Leggatt

Sir Philip Otton

[Delivered by Lord Steyn]

------------------

1. At the conclusion of the hearing on 27th January 2003 their Lordships agreed humbly to advise Her Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed with costs and that they would give their reasons later. This they now do.
2. The appellant, Dr Patel, appeals from a direction made by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council on 10 May 2002 that his name be erased from the Medical Register in consequence of eight criminal convictions recorded against him in the Crown Court at Woolwich on 26 June 2001, which resulted in him being sentenced to an immediate term of 6 months' imprisonment.
3. The grounds of appeal are limited to the argument that, in the circumstances, a direction ordering erasure was unduly harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the particular misconduct.
4. In the relevant period - October 1998 to June 1999 - Dr Patel was a doctor in his mid-fifties coming towards the end of a successful career in the medical service of the army. He was working as a general practitioner at an army base, employed by the Ministry of Defence.
5. In 2001, however, he was charged with eight counts of dishonestly furnishing false information contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968. After a contested three weeks trial the appellant was convicted by the jury on all eight counts. His criminal conduct consisted in claiming for locum fees in relation to doctors and one nurse when to his knowledge no such locum work had been undertaken. The counts spanned an eight month period and involved a sum of £6,300. An aggravating feature was that in respect of count 8 Dr Patel obtained the funds from the doctor who initially received the funds. The money received was paid into an account which he controlled. None of the money was paid to the doctors named on the forms or to the Ministry of Defence.
6. The jury found that Dr Patel acted dishonestly with a view to personal gain. So far as it was suggested in argument by counsel that Dr Patel "never intended to take the money to fund his own life style", it is to be noted that the judge observed in his sentencing observations that Dr Patel had intended to hold on to the money dishonestly. It is plain that Dr Patel acted dishonestly in a systematic way for personal gain.
7. This was the context of the case before the Professional Conduct Committee. There were strong mitigating factors. Dr Patel produced testimonials and called evidence. Counsel reviewed the mitigating factors comprehensively. Dr Patel's record of achievements in the army medical service, as well as the Territorial Army was exemplary. He was a generous man. His colleagues spoke up for him. He also suffered from the stress of having a vulnerable child and a severely ill mother. After his conviction he repaid the money in question to the Ministry of Defence.
8. Counsel also emphasised that Dr Patel has been given a contract as a full-time salaried general practitioner at the Erith Health Centre which will last until April 2004 and was employed by both Primecare and Conway Medical Centre.
9. In these circumstances the argument is that the direction of erasure was unjust. The submission is that a suspension would have been sufficient to mark the seriousness of the misconduct and would in all the circumstances have been a just disposal.
10. On the other hand, as the Professional Conduct Committee observed, Dr Patel defrauded his employer over a period of eight months. The Professional Conduct Committee concluded that:

"The purpose of today's hearing is not to punish you a second time for the offences of which you were convicted, but to protect the public interest by preserving public trust in the profession and maintaining high standards of conduct as well as protecting members of the public.

The Committee have balanced the need to protect the public interest against the consequences of any order that would deprive you of your livelihood. The behaviour described to the Committee today cannot be tolerated in a registered medical practitioner. By your actions you have been guilty of behaviour liable to bring the medical profession into disrepute, and to undermine public confidence in the profession.

The Committee bore in mind the words of Lord Bingham, Master of the Rolls, in the case Bolton v Law Society adopted by the Privy Council in the case of Dr Gupta, Privy Council appeal No. 44 of 2001, and I quote:

'The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership of a profession bring many benefits, but that is part of the price.'

The Committee are satisfied that neither conditions nor a period of suspension from practice would be sufficient to meet the gravity of the offences you committed, or protect the public interest, and have therefore concluded that they have no option but to direct the Registrar to erase your name from the medical register."

Their Lordships consider that the Professional Conduct Committee was right to be guided by the judgment in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512. It is true that in that case misconduct by a solicitor was at stake. But the approach there outlined applies to all professional men. There can be no lower standard applied to doctors: Gupta v General Medical Council [2002] 1 WLR 1691, at para 21, per Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. For all professional persons including doctors a finding of dishonesty lies at the top end in the spectrum of gravity of misconduct. That is what was involved in this case.

11. This is the context in which the argument that a direction for erasure of Dr Patel's name from the Medical Register was unjust must be considered. Giving careful consideration to all the mitigating factors advanced, the Board concludes that the Professional Conduct Committee was right to subordinate those subjective factors to the objective need to protect the public interest.
12. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The appellant must pay the respondent's costs of this appeal.