Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
B E F O R E:
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
(CLAIMANT)
-v-
SYED
(DEFENDANT)
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR I HARE (instructed by General Medical Council) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
The DEFENDANT did not attend and was not represented
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: It does not appear that Mr Syed has been notified of today's hearing. What I propose to do, therefore, in view of the imminent expiry of the conditions, is to deal with that matter by extending the period as sought. But I will make it in this instance subject to an express provision that Mr Syed has liberty to apply on a week's notice for the discharge or variation of that provision. I will deliver a short judgment in that respect.
2. The General Medical council, the claimant, is seeking in these proceedings an extension for a year of the interim order of conditions which has been in place in respect of Mr Syed now for some five years. The interim order of conditions would, in the absence of any extension, expire on 28th May 2005. The GMC seeks an extension until 27th May 2006. For reasons which I will come to briefly, on the material before me that application for an extension is justified.
3. It became apparent, however, that although Mr Syed is aware that these proceedings exist, or has been notified that they exist and would know from past experience of the renewal of these orders that they do require to be renewed annually, he has not been notified of the precise time and date of the hearing. It is notable that not only is he not present but he has not, as he has done in the past, signed a consent order to the extension. Enquiries have established that regrettably he has not been notified by the Administrative Court of the date and time of the hearing. Attempts today to contact him have not been successful. It may be, as Mr Hare for the GMC told me on instructions, that Mr Syed is in fact out of the country in Pakistan which is where he trained.
4. The effect of that is that this is, in reality, a hearing without notice. The urgency of the situation because of the expiry of the interim order of conditions on 27th May requires that there be an extension (and it may well be that there is no issue but that there should be a year's extension), and I propose to grant the extension but to order that Mr Syed have liberty to apply to this court for the variation or discharge of that order upon one week's notice to the GMC. That protects his position should he wish to contest the continuance of the interim order of conditions.
5. The imposition of these conditions has a history which arises out of two incidents in about 2000 which led assessors to conclude that there were serious deficiencies in Mr Syed's abilities as a neurological surgeon. The matter was then considered by a screener and then the predecessor to the Interim Orders Panel determined, on 30th November 2000, that it would impose an order of conditions which are in effect very similar, if not identical, to those which the GMC ask to extend. A performance assessment was required but not agreed to immediately. The doctor's conduct became the subject of a manslaughter charge and the assessment was postponed until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in that matter, which concluded with Mr Syed's acquittal in May 2003.
6. Thereafter the performance assessment was delayed while there were difficulties with the health of Mr Syed. However, the process did eventually get underway. The interim order conditions were renewed on two occasions by consent in the High Court until 27th May 2005. The performance assessment led to the Panel concluding that there had been serious deficiencies in the professional performance of Mr Syed and that those could be remedied by training, but that his professional practice should be limited.
7. The final report of the Assessment Panel was produced in February of this year following consideration of what Mr Syed had to say, and the matter has now been referred to case examiners who will consider fitness to practice.
8. On 3rd March 2005 the Interim Orders Panel again met to consider Mr Syed's case and the question of whether conditions should be attached to his practising until the conclusion of a hearing before a Fitness to Practice Panel. The IOP considered that those conditions should remain in place. The decision of the IOP was to the effect that Mr Syed had an impaired fitness to practice, that he may pose a risk to patients but balancing, as a matter of proportion, the need to protect members of the public and the public interest against the consequences for Mr Syed of the imposition of the conditions, it concluded that those conditions should stay in place.
9. It is plain that those conclusions are supported by proper and cogent evidence to the effect that the conclusions of the IOP as to Mr Syed's competence and the interests of the public are justified and that the serious shortcomings that have been identified need to be remedied, until fitness to practice has finally been ascertained, by the continuation of the conditions. Accordingly, I shall make the order in the terms sought, continuing those conditions until 27th May 2006 with the addition that Mr Syed shall have liberty to apply for variation or discharge of that order upon one week's notice.
10. MR HARE: I am obliged, my Lord.
11. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Thank you very much.