Erasure appeal dismissed in Higgins v GMC

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by a doctor erased from the register, accused of “sexual misconduct” in Higgins v General Medical Council [2024] EWHC 1906 (Admin) (25 July 2024).

Mrs Justice Heather Williams summarized in her judgement that this was an appeal brought under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 (“MA 1983”) from the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s (“the Tribunal”) findings of sexual misconduct by the Appellant General Practitioner and its decision to erase him from the register.

The allegations concerned the Appellant’s behaviour towards four junior female members of staff at the General Practice (“the Practice”) where he was a partner. They were referred to by the Tribunal as Ms A, Ms B, Ms C and Ms D.

In summary, he was said to have made unwelcome comments of a sexual nature to the four women, in person, over the telephone and/or via messaging services. It was also alleged that he had hugged Ms A a number of times without her permission and that on one occasion he had shut the door behind her, grabbed her and tried to kiss her against her will.

The Appellant brought four grounds of appeal:

• Ground 1 is that the Tribunal failed to have regard to relevant evidence; and
• Ground 2 is that the Tribunal failed to give any or any adequate reasons for its findings of fact on central issues; and
• Ground 3 asserts that the Tribunal erred in its approach to credibility and weighing of the evidence, in particular that it inconsistently weighed in favour of inculpatory evidence of GMC witnesses and against exculpatory evidence of the Appellant and specific examples are given; and
• Ground 4 contends that in any event the Tribunal erred in its approach to assessing the Appellant’s insight which was, in turn, relevant to the severity of the sanction imposed.

Following a lengthy discussion on the individual merits of the case and the various submissions, Williams J concluded that:

“Accordingly, I reject Grounds 1 and 3. The Appellant has not made out the specific complaints that he makes. The Tribunal clearly had regard to the evidence that he says was ignored, and the conclusions it reached were reasonable ones that were open to it. There is nothing to suggest that the Appellant’s points were not considered, and it was for the Tribunal to assess the witnesses’ accounts.

“In truth, Grounds 1 and 3 are no more than expressions of disagreement with the Tribunal’s conclusions. Whichever formulation from the earlier authorities is applied (para 72 above), this is plainly not a case where any legitimate basis has been shown for interfering with the Tribunal’s findings of primary fact or its evaluative assessments.”

Turning to ground 2, the first complaint made under Ground 2 is that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for accepting Ms A’s account and rejecting the Appellant’s denials and that it did not assess the evidence suggesting consensual contact.

The second complaint is that the Tribunal failed to explicitly address the matters listed in para 19 of the grounds (para 103 of the judgement transcript).

Both these were also dismissed in their entirety.

Finally, turning to ground 4  – the Appellant’s complaints were twofold: that the Tribunal failed to have sufficient regard to the clear evidence of his insight and remediation; and that it erred in treating his denials as precluding him from demonstrating insight and remediation.

Williams J however commented that:

“The Tribunal were plainly alive to the Appellant’s otherwise unblemished career, which it referred to on a number of occasions. Nonetheless, given that it had legitimately found that Dr Higgins had only developed limited insight into the nature and seriousness of his misconduct, it was entitled to conclude that it was not satisfied that there was other than a significant risk of him repeating his behaviour (para 68 above).”

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.