High Court uphold PSA appeal and remit case back in PSA v GMC & Anor

The High Court has upheld an appeal by the PSA that appealed a determination by an MPT.

In the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council & Anor [2025] EWHC 318 (Admin), the High Court reviewed a decision by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal regarding Dr. Neill Garrard. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) appealed against the Tribunal’s decision that Dr. Garrard’s fitness to practice was not impaired1.

The PSA raised two main grounds of appeal:

• The Tribunal misdirected itself on the test for cross-admissibility of evidence.
• The Tribunal misinterpreted and/or misapplied the legal test for cross-admissibility.

The Tribunal had found that allegations of inappropriate and sexually motivated behaviour towards two vulnerable female patients were not proven. The PSA argued that the Tribunal should have considered the similarities between the patients’ allegations more carefully1.

Mr. Justice MacDonald heard the appeal.  On the first ground of appeal, MacDonald J said:

” I am satisfied that the Tribunal did not direct itself correctly with respect to the principles governing cross-admissibility of the allegations made by Patient A and Patient B. I acknowledge, of course, that deference should ordinarily be accorded to the reasons given by the Tribunal in circumstances where the Tribunal has expertise on medical matters. However, the issue that brings the matter before this court is not a medical issue but rather a legal one. In the circumstances, this court is not disadvantaged as compared to the Tribunal when it comes to evaluating the correctness or otherwise of the approach taken to the issue of cross admissibility in this case and the deference that would ordinarily be accorded to the Tribunal’s reasons is thus reduced.”

On the second ground, MacDonald J said:

“In these circumstances, had the Tribunal directed itself correctly on the issue of cross-admissibility I am satisfied that it may have reached a different conclusions on whether, in determining the allegations before the Tribunal, it should consider the evidence as a whole, whether the fact of two patients making allegations against the Registrant strengthened the case relating to the other and reduced the likelihood of there being an innocent explanation for them and whether the allegations relied on by the GMC were made out.”

He ultimately said:

“In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed on both grounds. Regrettably, this means that the decision of the Tribunal of 13 December 2024 must be quashed and the matter remitted for hearing by a differently constituted Tribunal, with a direction that the Tribunal come to a fresh decision applying the correct legal approach to cross-admissibility. I will ask leading and junior counsel to draw an order accordingly.

“

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.