High Court Decision in Aloaye Afakhade Foy‑Yamah v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2846

The background to the case Foy-Yamah v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2846 (Admin), lay in events from late 2018, when the doctor became involved in a personal relationship with a woman referred to as Ms A. The allegations before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) included engaging in sexual activity without consent and misusing his professional position by arranging a blood test for Ms A without clinical indication, which was neither documented nor communicated appropriately.

Following an extended hearing, the tribunal found that the doctor’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. On 10 January 2025 it imposed a 12-month suspension with a review hearing directed.

The GMC appealed the sanction under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983, arguing that it was insufficient to maintain public confidence and standards in the profession.

The GMC advanced multiple grounds of appeal, contending that the tribunal’s sanction was unduly lenient given the gravity of the misconduct, that it failed to give adequate weight to aggravating features, and that it had misapplied the Sanctions Guidance—particularly paragraphs relating to sexual misconduct and conduct “fundamentally incompatible” with continued registration.

The regulator submitted that erasure from the register was the only sanction capable of protecting the public and maintaining confidence in the profession. The doctor resisted the appeal, maintaining that the misconduct, while serious, occurred entirely within his private life and did not involve a doctor-patient relationship or abuse of a clinical position. He relied on his unblemished record, numerous positive testimonials, and a substantial contribution to the NHS during the Covid-19 pandemic as evidence that suspension was proportionate.

In its judgment, the High Court reaffirmed that on a section 40A appeal the burden lies firmly with the GMC to demonstrate that a tribunal’s decision is insufficient for public protection or maintaining standards, rather than merely lenient. The Court accepted that the misconduct was extremely serious, involving non-consensual sexual activity and misuse of professional status, but it also noted that the MPTS had carefully distinguished between conduct in a doctor-patient context and behaviour arising in private life. Ms A was not a patient at the relevant time, and the tribunal found no abuse of a clinical relationship. The Court endorsed that distinction, recognising its relevance to proportionality.

On insight and risk of repetition, the Court acknowledged that Dr Foy-Yamah continued to deny wrongdoing, which limited the tribunal’s ability to assess insight directly.

Nevertheless, the tribunal had concluded that the risk of repetition was low, taking into account the six-year lapse of time since the events, the doctor’s otherwise exemplary practice, and the absence of any further concerns. Mitigating features such as good character, positive testimonials, and professional service during the pandemic were legitimately weighed in determining sanction. The tribunal had expressly considered erasure, concluding that the case “came right up to the line of erasure but fell just short of crossing it,” and therefore imposed the maximum suspension of 12 months with a directed review hearing.

The Court held that, save for one issue, the tribunal’s reasoning was lawful and fell within the range of reasonable responses.

However, it granted the GMC’s appeal on Ground 6. That ground concerned the tribunal’s handling of the review direction —specifically, its failure to provide sufficiently clear reasoning and guidance about the purpose of the review hearing, what the doctor would be expected to demonstrate, and how risk would be reassessed at that stage.

In summary, the judge found that the events leading to the rape were not unusual and could easily recur. The doctor ignored clear refusals from the victim and proceeded anyway, showing a pattern of risky behaviour. His later denial and implausible explanation—claiming only a kiss—demonstrated a troubling lack of insight and remorse. The judge concluded that the Panel’s finding that the doctor posed no future risk to women was unfounded, given his conduct, lack of insight, and absence of remediation.

The court dismissed the doctor’s appeal all together.  In relation to the GMC’s cross appeal, if ruled that

I will grant the GMC’s appeal on ground 6 and dismiss their appeal on all other grounds.

Whilst the Panel ruled that suspension was the appropriate sanction, despite the Panel considering that the misconduct of Dr Foy bought him close to the line over which erasure would have been necessary, I consider that the appropriate sanction should be reconsidered by a Panel as soon as is practicable hereafter. Until that time Dr Foy should remain suspended from registration.

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.