High Court allow appeal in GMC & PSA v Gilbert 

The High Court has allowed an appeal by the GMC against a MPTS finding the GMC argued was insufficient to protect the public.

In General Medical Council & Anor v Gilbert [2025] EWHC 802 (Admin) (03 April 2025), ​the respondent doctor and a consultant surgeon, faced allegations of professional misconduct during his tenure at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and later at other medical institutions.

These allegations included sexual harassment, racist conduct, harassment related to race, and abuse of his senior position toward colleagues. His behaviour spanned years, affecting multiple junior colleagues, and led to his dismissal from the Trust in May 2022. Subsequently, the General Medical Council (GMC) investigated his fitness to practice, resulting in a Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal hearing.

During the Tribunal’s hearing, evidence from several alleged victims, as well as colleagues and medical professionals. The Tribunal found most of the allegations proven, including sexually motivated comments, non-consensual physical touching, and derogatory remarks about race.

These actions were found to constitute misconduct, abuse of a senior position, sexual harassment, and racism under the Equality Act 2010. While the respondent doctor’s medical competence was not questioned, his behaviour was determined to undermine public confidence and violate professional standards outlined in Good Medical Practice.

The Tribunal declared he respondent doctor‘s fitness to practice impaired and considered sanctions. They determined that suspension, rather than erasure from the medical register, was appropriate. While his behaviour represented a serious breach of professional standards, the Tribunal concluded it was remediable, supported by evidence of Dr. Gilbert’s efforts to change. A suspension of eight months was imposed to reflect the gravity of the misconduct, maintain public confidence in the profession, and uphold professional standards.

The GMC and Professional Standards Authority (PSA) appealed the sanction under sections 40A and 40B of the Medical Act 1983, arguing that it was insufficient to protect the public and maintain confidence in the medical profession. They contended that the respondent doctor‘s behaviour warranted erasure due to its serious departure from professional standards and potential impact on public trust. The appellants presented multiple grounds of appeal, highlighting the reckless disregard for Good Medical Practice, the sexual nature of the misconduct, and its incompatibility with continued registration.

The High Court reviewed the Tribunal’s findings, the appropriateness of the sanction, and the GMC’s Sanctions Guidance, concluding a suspension was appropriate.  Calver J said:

“In all the circumstances, the Tribunal’s evaluative decision that a period of suspension rather than erasure was appropriate on the facts of this case was, in my judgment, one which did not fall outside the bounds of what the adjudicative body could properly and reasonably decide, even taking into account the fact that the Tribunal ought to have found that Allegations … were proved. Indeed, I agree with the Tribunal’s conclusion a… that erasure in this case would be a disproportionate sanction in all the circumstances. Suspension is a serious sanction…”

However, Calver J went on to say:

“However, in determining a period of suspension of 8 months … I consider that the Tribunal:

(a) wrongly failed to take into account the fact that the misconduct, in those cases identified above, (whilst not in fact imperilling public safety) was capable of imperilling public safety;

(b) wrongly failed to take sufficiently into account the harm which was caused to the victims of his sexual misconduct;

(c) wrongly failed sufficiently to mark the seriousness of its findings, giving too much weight to ​the respondent doctor‘s mitigation, bearing in mind that matters of mitigation are likely to be of considerably less significance in regulatory proceedings than to a court, because the overarching concern is the protection of the public;

(d) wrongly failed to take into account the fact that it ought to have found Allegations 15(b) and 23(a) proved.”

He ultimately ruled:

“I agree. A suspension of 12 months, which is the maximum period of suspension, reflects the seriousness of the misconduct of Mr. Gilbert and is also necessary for the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession. It also gives Mr. Gilbert an adequate period to reflect upon and remediate his behaviour, before a review can take place to assess whether he is fit to practise once again or not.

“It follows that I allow these appeals to the extent set out in this judgment.”

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.