High Court upholds GMC erasure decision in fitness to practise appeal by appellant doctor

In Haroon v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2619 (Admin), the High Court dismissed an appeal brought by the appellant doctor against the decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) to erase his name from the medical register.

The case centred on the appropriate sanction following a criminal conviction for controlling or coercive behaviour, raising significant questions about fitness to practise, public confidence, and regulatory proportionality.

Background to the case

The appellant doctor was convicted in July 2024 at Swansea Crown Court of controlling or coercive behaviour against his wife, contrary to section 76(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The conviction was based on eight incidents of domestic violence between 2021 and 2023, including physical assaults while his wife was pregnant and in the presence of their children. He received a suspended sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment, a rehabilitation activity requirement, and a restraining order.

Following a self-referral to the General Medical Council (GMC), the MPT found that the appellant doctor’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction. The Tribunal concluded that erasure was the only appropriate sanction, citing the seriousness of the offence, limited insight, and the need to uphold public confidence in the profession.

Grounds of appeal

The appellant doctor did not challenge the finding of impairment but appealed against the sanction of erasure under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983. He appeared in person before the High Court and advanced three grounds of appeal:

1. Failure to balance aggravating and mitigating factors – He argued that the MPT gave insufficient weight to his previous good character, professional testimonials, and efforts at remediation.
2. Misapplication of guidance and legal precedent – He contended that the MPT misinterpreted the GMC’s Sanctions Guidance, particularly regarding offences involving violence, and placed undue emphasis on public perception.
3. Error in determining sanction – He submitted that erasure was excessive and disproportionate, and that suspension would have adequately protected the public interest.

Court judgment

Mrs Justice Farbey DBE rejected all grounds of appeal and upheld the MPT’s decision. She found that the Tribunal had properly applied the Sanctions Guidance, given appropriate weight to both aggravating and mitigating factors, and reached a reasoned conclusion that erasure was necessary.

The judgment emphasised that offences involving violence, especially in a domestic context, may justify erasure even where patient safety is not directly at risk. The court noted that the appellant doctor demonstrated limited insight, continued to deny the underlying conduct, and had not undertaken meaningful remediation specific to the nature of his offending.

Mrs Justice Farbey concluded that the MPT’s decision was neither wrong nor unjust, and that erasure was proportionate and necessary to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession, and uphold proper standards. The appeal was dismissed. 

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.