Court of Appeal rejects appeals by the GMC and PSA

The Court of Appeal, in General Medical Council v Gilbert & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 53 (06 February 2026), rejected arguments from the GMC and PSA that Dr Gilbert’s conduct was so serious that only erasure from the medical register could protect the public. The judges held that the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) had applied the correct legal framework and reached a rational, defensible conclusion when imposing a suspension.

Background to the case

Dr Gilbert, a consultant surgeon at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, faced allegations spanning more than a decade (2009–2022). These included sexually motivated comments, unwanted physical contact towards junior female colleagues, and racist remarks made in clinical settings, sometimes in front of patients.

After a 19‑day hearing in 2024, the MPT found the majority of allegations proved and concluded that Dr Gilbert’s fitness to practise was impaired. However, it determined that the misconduct—though serious—was not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The Tribunal imposed an eight‑month suspension without review, noting evidence of remediation and insight.

The GMC appealed under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983, arguing that erasure was the only sanction capable of maintaining public confidence. The PSA joined the appeal under section 40B.

In 2025, the High Court upheld the suspension, though it found two additional allegations should have been proved. It nevertheless concluded that erasure was not required.

Both regulators then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Dionne Spence, Chief Enforcement Officer at the General Pharmaceutical Council, said:

“These updated criteria provide more clarity about which concerns fall within our remit, improving transparency and strengthening our risk-based approach.

“By improving understanding of when we need to be involved and when we don’t, we expect to reduce avoidable concerns and focus our regulatory effort where it makes the greatest difference to patient safety and public trust.

“We have also made our webpage on reporting concerns easier to understand, so anyone with a concern can direct it to the right place where it can be dealt with as effectively as possible.”

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.