Doctor able to practice unrestricted

With representation from Kings View Chambers, a fitness to practise tribunal made a finding of no impairment, leaving our client to practice unrestricted.

Our client, K, approached Kings View Chambers at a very early stage in proceedings following allegations of a professional boundaries issue with a former patient. It was quite clear from that stage that the situation was not as being alleged or presented by the GMC.

However, for a number of reasons, including the fact that there was an internal investigation running alongside a GMC investigation, difficult decisions had to be made about how to engage in the matter and what to present. With representation from Kings View Chambers, we were able to shape the way the GMC advanced their case after the internal investigation and, knowing it would go through the GMC Case Examiners, began aggressive and comprehensive preparations very early.

The case involved much legal argument and tactical redactions to the bundles with altered allegations by the end. With huge work and effort, we were able to convince the MPTS Tribunal that there was no current impairment and K continues to practice unrestricted.

Representing K, fitness to practise defence barrister, Stephen McCaffrey, commented:

“This case was another example of the important of making decisions from the earliest stage based on how you would win at fitness to practise hearing at the MPTS.

“Although we always do everything possible to stop a case before then, decisions still need to be based on a strategy and that strategy must be focused on winning should the case end up before a MPTS.

“Not all do.  This one did and we were so pleased K put his trust in us and our plan. The result speaks for itself. Another good doctor has avoided restriction or erasure based on this principle. We were delighted for K.”

K said:

“After a nearly two-year ordeal culminating in a Fitness to Practice hearing with a positive outcome, I am now able to share my thoughts on working with Stephen and Kings View Chambers.

“From the first consultation, Stephen offered invaluable expertise and emotional support, transforming my perspective on my situation. His meticulous approach and thorough planning ensured the best possible outcome, always keeping my best interests at the forefront. Every decision he made was crucial and laid the foundation for success.

“I cannot recommend Stephen highly enough; instructing him was the best decision I made.”

Benn v General Medical Council

The case of Benn v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 87 (Admin) involves Dr. Sarah Benn’s appeal against the Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal’s (MPT) decision to suspend her from the medical register for five months. The MPT’s decision was based on findings that Dr. Benn’s fitness to practice was impaired through misconduct due to her participation in Just Stop Oil protests, which led to her breaching a High Court injunction and resulting in her imprisonment.

Dr. Benn’s appeal argued that her actions were motivated by genuine and sincerely held beliefs in the wider interests of public health and that the Tribunal’s decision was disproportionate. She contended that her participation in non-violent environmental activism should not amount to misconduct and that the sanction of suspension was excessive.

In the case, the MPT acknowledged that “amongst the public there would be considerable sympathy for Dr Benn’s concerns about the environment” but ultimately the tribunal expressed the view that “the overwhelming majority of the public would not condone breaking the law in the way in which Dr Benn did especially given the impact, on the final occasion, to the wider public resources involved.”

There will no doubt be considerable public sympathy and support for, in this case, doctors who take part in this form of activism recognising the implications of inaction on climate change.  However, the High Court was clear on the importance of doctors acting within the rule of law at all times, notwithstanding the motivation behind any action(s) that lead to them breaking the rule of law.  Mr Justice Yip commented in this case:

“A doctor cannot be permitted to deliberately act outside the law, nor can anyone else. The rule of law applies to everyone. The rule of law was applied to Dr Benn when the High Court enforced its orders and sentenced her to a period of imprisonment. It was therefore a mischaracterisation of the issue to suggest that Dr Benn’s arguments would result in the Tribunal permitting doctors to act outside the law.” 

Protest action, fitness to practise and patient risk

It has been pointed that, whilst it is the case that the GMC has a duty to refer doctors to a medical tribunal when they receive a custodial sentence, in the case of climate protests, the doctor’s actions will not necessarily have a bearing on their ability to practise medicine nor pose any risk to their patients.

This has called into question the GMC approach and how it should deal with doctors convicted of offences arising from protest action. The BMA, for example, said;

“Referring a doctor to a medical tribunal for something not directly related to patient care or their clinical skills, raises legitimate questions about the rules behind the handling of such cases and whether doctors should be punished twice for something totally unconnected to their role as doctors.

“The climate crisis is a health crisis and as such doctors are understandably concerned about the failings of Governments to address climate change, at the detriment to society.  Doctors, like Patrick Hart, find it very difficult to understand why their ability to practise medicine could be suspended because of non-violent actions they take in protest of the climate crisis.” 

What is clear from the current GMC position on criminal convictions, and other fitness to practise issues arising from doctors taking part in protest action, is that the overriding consideration is doctors staying within the rule of law and complying with the GMC guidance (most importantly the Good medical practice).

Whilst there is general recognition and sympathy for doctors taking up the cause to raise awareness of the implications of climate change, this does not overwrite the need for doctors to stay on the right side of the law and act with integrity.

The fact that a doctor’s protest action(s) may, neither, have no bearing on their ability to practise medicine nor pose any risk to their patients is not considered relevant.  This position has been upheld by the High Court, as we discussed in the case of Dr Benn.

Doctors will need to ensure they act within the law when taking part in any form of protest or activism to avoid fitness to practise investigations and possible sanctions.

Kings View Chambers

We are leaders in fitness to practise defence, with a remarkable track record of success and rated excellent by our clients.

Kings View Chambers has over 30 years’ combined experience representing heath and care professionals at all levels.  We are a leading fitness to practise defence chambers that have a proud record of consistently achieving excellent outcomes for our clients.

As public access barristers, you can instruct us directly without having the additional expense of hiring a solicitor.

Speak to us today for a free, no obligation assessment of your case.