Sexual misconduct, remediation and fitness to practise: lessons from Sadiq v GMC

The General Medical Council (GMC) has launched a consultation on updated guidance for doctors, physician associates (PAs), and anaesthesia associates (AAs) regarding their professional duty to raise and act on concerns about patient safety. This marks the first major revision of the guidance since 2012.

Summary of the GMC’s proposed guidance

The consultation, open until 22 January 2026, covers two interlinked documents: Raising and acting on concerns about patient safety and Leadership and management for all doctors.

Key proposals include:

• Explicit duty to speak up: All registrants must raise concerns where patient safety may be at risk, regardless of their role or setting.
• Leadership accountability: Managers and clinical leaders are expected to act promptly and effectively when concerns are raised.
• Anti-victimisation clause: A proposed new paragraph would prohibit retaliation against individuals who raise concerns, reinforcing psychological safety in the workplace.
• Cultural change: The guidance emphasises the need for discrimination-free, inclusive environments where all team members feel respected and empowered to speak up.
• Broader scope of concerns: Even issues not directly linked to immediate patient harm are recognised as potentially impacting safety and must be addressed accordingly.

These updates align with the GMC’s revised Good medical practice framework, which prioritises compassionate leadership, fairness, and a culture of continuous improvement.

For doctors, the key lesson is that remediation has a different role depending on the nature of the concern. Where clinical performance is in issue, remediation through training, supervision or reflection can carry significant weight. In contrast, sexual misconduct is exceptionally difficult to remediate. Even genuine insight and evidence of changed behaviour may not prevent erasure if the misconduct is grave.

That said, sexual misconduct is not automatically fatal to a doctor’s career. Case law and guidance show that insight and remediation can still have a positive bearing on sanctions. Evidence of reflection, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and steps taken to address behaviour may demonstrate reduced risk of repetition. In borderline cases, such evidence can influence whether suspension rather than erasure is imposed, or affect the length of suspension. Tribunals may also record remediation efforts to recognise attempts at reform, even where erasure is ultimately ordered.

Doctors facing fitness to practise allegations should therefore prioritise developing genuine insight and undertaking structured remediation. Specialist programmes such as Insight Works Complete are designed to support doctors in evidencing reflection, remediation and behavioural change. These services can provide practical tools, training and documentation that demonstrate to tribunals a commitment to professional integrity and reduced risk of repetition. While remediation cannot erase the seriousness of sexual misconduct, engaging with structured programmes can show regulators that a doctor is taking responsibility and actively working to address concerns.

This case underscores the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and recognising that sexual misconduct is treated as fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. While the consistent position of the GMC and MPTS is that sexual misconduct is exceptionally difficult to remediate and usually leads to erasure, evidence of insight and remediation can still have a positive bearing on sanctions and demonstrate commitment to professional integrity.

When things go wrong, we are here when you need us

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.

Kings View Chambers are rated excellent by its clients. As public access barristers, you can instruct us directly without having the additional expense of hiring a solicitor.

It is a well-established fact that healthcare professionals who seek legal advice and representation at an early stage in any fitness to practise process, generally, receive better outcomes and lesser sanctions, if any.  We can advise on the right strategy to take and represent you before a fitness to practise hearing.