The case of Myhill v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 474 (Admin) involves Dr. Sarah Myhill’s appeal against the GMC’s findings of professional misconduct and her fitness to practise, focusing on the admissibility of new evidence that may alter the previous judgments.
Dr. Myhill, an experienced doctor specializing in ecological medicine, appeals under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983. The appeal concerns a ruling by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (Original Tribunal) in January 2023, which found Dr. Myhill guilty of professional misconduct and impaired fitness to practise. The appeal also involves new evidence that Dr. Myhill seeks to introduce.
The Original Tribunal found Dr. Myhill guilty of professional misconduct for promoting unlicensed agents like vitamin C, Iodine, vitamin D, and Ivermectin to treat viral infections, including COVID-19. These recommendations were deemed unsafe and potentially harmful, failing to meet professional standards set by Good Medical Practice (GMP). The Tribunal imposed a nine-month suspension on Dr. Myhill’s medical licence.
A Review Tribunal in November 2023 upheld the Original Tribunal’s findings, confirming Dr. Myhill’s fitness to practise remained impaired. Dr. Myhill attended this hearing, arguing for the introduction of new evidence that she claims would render previous findings unsound. The Review Tribunal rejected this application, citing its limited mandate to assess current fitness to practise rather than re-evaluate prior findings.
Dr. Myhill’s appealed seeking to introduce new evidence divided into three categories: the “Bolam bundle,” related to expert opinions supporting her treatment recommendations, and evidence from patients “A” and “B.” The new evidence aims to demonstrate her treatments were safe and in line with a body of medical opinion, countering the Original Tribunal’s conclusions.
Mr Justice Dexter Dias commented that the appeal raises significant issues regarding the correct approach to fresh evidence when a prior finding of misconduct is in place. The legal framework involves principles from Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee and Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, emphasizing freedom of expression and fair trial standards.
Dias J decided to refuse Dr. Myhill’s application to admit fresh evidence. The court applied the Ladd v Marshall test for fresh evidence, which requires showing that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would probably influence the result, and is credible.
The court found that Dr. Myhill’s evidence did not meet these criteria. The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation and the importance of adhering to procedural rules for appeals. The appeal will proceed based on the existing material from the Review Tribunal.
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