General Medical Council v Bonhoeffer

This is an application by the General Medical Council (“the GMC”) for an order pursuant to section 41(a)(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983 for an order extending an interim order of suspension by five months.

The defendant is a Professor of Paediatric Cardiology of some professional eminence, who has from time-to-time practised in various places in the world, including in the United Kingdom and Kenya.

Some time ago, allegations arose out of Kenya in relation to claims of sexual abuse by him of a particular child. The full details and history of those complaints I need not dwell upon because they are set out in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Stewart QC, sitting as a judge of this court, given on 27 April 2011 in respect of an earlier extension of time ([2011] EWHC 2353 (Admin)).

The last extension was sought six months ago, and the defendant consented to it. The position at that stage was that further allegations involving other children in Kenya had come to light; and they were being investigated by the GMC with a view to a comprehensive hearing before a Fitness to Practice Panel being convened. At that stage, that panel hearing had not been convened. Since then, over the last six months, those investigations have been concluded and a Fitness to Practice panel has been convened to deal with all the outstanding complaints, over a five week period in July and August of this year. Before then, there is to be a week-long preliminary hearing.

It is in those circumstances that the GMC seek a further extension of five months, to cover that hearing.

The criteria to be applied by this court in considering such an order are the same as those for making an interim order by the GMC as the regulatory body, including the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case has not been concluded and the prejudice to the practitioner if an interim order is continued (GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369). The burden is on the regulatory body to show on the balance of probabilities that the relevant criteria are met and that an extension should be granted.

Taking into account the factors I must, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the time of the interim suspension order for the five months sought.

I have particularly taken into account the grave nature of the charges against the defendant, the importance of protecting the public and the potential risk to patients if these matters are not properly investigated and adjudicated upon by the GMC prior to the defendant returning to his profession.

I have also considered the consequences for the defendant. I appreciate that merely having such charges hanging over him is prejudicial; but the extension will not have any significant adverse effect on the defendant in this sense, that he has now indicated that he will not participate further in the disciplinary proceedings and he does not propose to practise in the United Kingdom further, whatever the outcome of the disciplinary hearings.

I have also taken into account the history of the case as set out in the documents and the reasons why the case has not been concluded; and, importantly, the fact that the matter has now been set down for a hearing before a Fitness to Practice Panel and a final hearing will take place in a month or so. I am satisfied that the authority, particularly during the course of the last six months, has been proceeding to a conclusion with reasonable expedition, and that the proceedings will be concluded by the end of the extension I propose making.

Consequently, under the statutory provisions I have identified, I will extend the interim suspension order by five months from an expiry date of 30 June 2012 to one of 29 November 2012.