The High Court has allowed an appeal by the General Medical Council (GMC) against the sanction imposed on a doctor found to have committed serious sexual misconduct, ruling that the Medical Practitioners Tribunal made material errors in its approach to sanction.
In General Medical Council v Tripathi [2026] EWHC 1653 (Admin), handed down on 2 July 2026, the Administrative Court quashed a 10-month suspension order imposed on Dr Manish Tripathi and remitted the case to a freshly constituted Medical Practitioners Tribunal to reconsider sanction.
The Tribunal had previously found that Dr Tripathi carried out a clinically unnecessary examination of a female patient, exposed and touched her breasts without consent or adequate explanation, locked the consulting room door, turned off the light, acted for a sexual purpose, sexually harassed the patient and abused his position of trust. The misconduct occurred while the patient’s seven-year-old son was present in the consultation room.
The Tribunal concluded that Dr Tripathi’s fitness to practise was impaired on public protection, public confidence and professional standards grounds. It also found that his insight was limited, remediation would be difficult and there remained a real risk of repetition. It imposed a suspension order for 10 months, with a review before expiry.
The GMC appealed under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in law by applying an outdated version of the GMC’s Sanctions Guidance, failing to consider whether the patient had suffered serious harm, incorrectly assessing the risk of repetition, and placing insufficient weight on maintaining public confidence and professional standards.
The High Court upheld three of the four grounds of appeal. It held that the Tribunal had materially erred by relying on a superseded version of the Sanctions Guidance when determining sanction. The Court also found that the Tribunal failed to address the guidance relating to serious harm suffered by the patient and adopted an incomplete assessment of future risk by considering only the likelihood of repetition rather than the seriousness of the consequences if similar misconduct were repeated.
Although the Court found material errors in the Tribunal’s sanction decision, it declined to substitute a sanction of erasure. Instead, it quashed the sanction and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Medical Practitioners Tribunal for a fresh decision on sanction in accordance with the applicable guidance.
Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.
Restoration Courses
Courses suitable for any health and social care practitioner who is considering making an application for restoration back onto the register.
Insight & Remediation
Courses that are suitable for any healthcare practitioner who is facing an investigation or hearing at work or before their regulatory body.
Probity, Ethics & Professionalism
Courses designed for those facing a complaint involving in part or in whole honesty, integrity and /or professionalism.
Recent Comments