|GMC Case – the papers have been served|
|Saturday, 14 March 2009|
|Our lawyers have now issued the application for judicial review of the GMC decision not to refer the architects of MTAS to the Fitness to Practise Committee. We have raised most of the money we need, and are hoping that supporters will make up the shortfall soon. The grounds of the case are given below.We are immensely grateful to our supporters who have donated money and made this case possible. If you have not yet donated then please do so – you can do this on our Donate Page.
The papers were served in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrive Court, in the matter of an application for permission to apply for judicial review between The Queen on the application of Remedy UK Lrd (CLAIMANT) and the General Medical Council (DEFENDANT).
The brief grounds of the case are given below. A few details have been removed from public scrutiny at this stage.
This case concerns the jurisdiction of the General Medical Council (“GMC”) to consider complaints against doctors who have taken managerial decisions with serious consequences for the medical profession, the reputation of the profession, and ultimately patient care.
In 2006 and 2007 a new scheme was introduced governing the recruitment and training of junior doctors in the United Kingdom. The new scheme failed so comprehensively and caused such widespread public concern that it has been the subject of several highly critical reports, including an Independent Inquiry and a House of Commons Health Select Committee Inquiry.
3. In light of these serious criticisms, Remedy UK Limited (“Remedy”), a doctors’ campaigning group, made a complaint to the GMC regarding the role of two senior doctors who were integrally involved in the management and implementation of the new scheme. Remedy alleged that the doctors’ conduct fell so far below the standards required of doctors in the exercise of their professional duties as to amount to misconduct and/or deficient professional performance within section 35C(2) of the Medical Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”).
4. On 12 December 2008 the Registrar of the GMC refused to refer the complaints for further investigation on the basis that the conduct complained about could not fall within section 35C(2) of the 1983 Act because it did not occur in a clinical setting and could not be said to impinge on the doctors’ fitness to practise as medical practitioners (“the Decision”) [849-850]. For the reasons set out below, the Decision was wrong in law.
5. The Claimant also applies for a Protective Costs Order (“PCO”) to enable these proceedings to be brought. The PCO sought from the Court would cap Remedy’s potential costs exposure to the Defendant and/or the Interested Parties at £20,000. The reasons for seeking such PCO are fully set out in the witness statement of . In essence, without the protection of such costs protection Remedy, an organisation of limited means, would not feel able to take the risk of bringing this litigation, notwithstanding the very strong public interest in it. It has raised £18,000 and is confident of raising another £2,000 specifically to fund this litigation.