High Court dismisses appeal in challenge to GMC dishonesty finding

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by the appellant doctor against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision that found he had dishonestly falsified a patient’s records and imposed a 12‑month suspension.

In Lee v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 3347 (Admin), Mrs Justice Brunner upheld both the preliminary tribunal’s decision to admit hearsay evidence from a deceased patient and the substantive tribunal’s findings that the doctor had retrospectively altered clinical records to conceal earlier omissions.

The case centred on events following a 2017 blood test showing an elevated PSA level. The appellant doctor later amended the patient’s records on three occasions—first in 2018 and again in 2020 after receiving a complaint—adding references to a telephone consultation, a declined prostate examination, and an ultrasound referral. The patient, who subsequently died, had consistently maintained that no such discussion or referral occurred.

The preliminary tribunal admitted the patient’s witness statement, concluding that although hearsay carried inherent risks, it was fair and in the public interest to consider it alongside other evidence, including the absence of contemporaneous records and the doctor’s own admissions about retrospective amendments.

At the substantive hearing, the tribunal found the doctor’s explanations inconsistent and implausible, identifying eight evidential strands supporting dishonesty. Patient A’s hearsay evidence was only one part of a broader evidential matrix, and the tribunal concluded that the amendments and complaint‑response letter were created to avoid criticism of care provided.

On appeal, the doctor argued that admitting the hearsay was procedurally unfair and that the tribunal had erred in preferring the patient’s account. Mrs Justice Brunner rejected both grounds, holding that the tribunals had applied the correct legal tests, given careful reasons, and reached conclusions fully supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed in full.

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.