Fernando v General Medical Council  EWHC 1664 (Admin)
The Fitness to Practise Panel (the panel) of the respondent General Medical Council found that the appellant doctor's fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a sanction of erasure from the medical register.
The appellant had faced 14 allegations, including that he had: (i) presented fraudulent prescriptions, intending to obtain and use the tablets for himself, leading to arrest on one occasion; (ii) possessed pads from seven other medical practices; (iii) allowed his professional indemnity cover to lapse; (iv) failed to inform his partners of the reason for his arrest and his lack of insurance; and (v) applied to join a performers list, but had failed to disclose that two earlier employments had been terminated due to unsatisfactory probation periods. The appellant appealed against sanction.
He contended that the panel had imposed a disproportionate sanction.
The appeal would be dismissed.
The panel's determination was unimpeachable. Each of the appellant's criticisms was entirely without foundation. Together, it was impossible to conclude that the criticisms had any greater weight than they had individually and that there had been any fundamental failure. The panel had approached the exercise on sanction with care. It had gone through all matters that had been raised. It had come to a conclusion that it had been entitled to on the evidence before it and had provided adequate reasoning for the task which it had had to discharge. The panel had been entitled to look beyond the charges that the appellant had been facing to take into account his overall professional history to come to a conclusion which had been fair and in the public interest. On a proper reading, it was evident to the appellant why the panel had concluded that erasure had been the appropriate sanction (see - of the judgment).
Reproduced with kind permission of LexisLibrary.