Arunkalaivanan v General Medical Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- AMANDA YIP QC
Areas of Law
- Health Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Angamuthu Arunkalaivanan appealed against a GMC decision to suspend his registration for 12 months due to misconduct including a breast examination conducted inappropriately and alleged sexual motivation. The court upheld the Panel's findings on inappropriate conduct but quashed the decision regarding sexual motivation, leading to the nullification of the suspension. The court emphasized deference to the factual findings of specialist tribunals, highlighting the necessity of evidence substantiation in allegations of sexual motivation.
JUDGMENT
Amanda Yip QC:
This is an appeal of Mr Angamuthu Arunkalaivanan (known as Mr Arun) under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel ("the Panel") of the General Medical Council (GMC) to suspend his registration for a period of 12 months.
The charges related to a consultation with a female patient (known in the proceedings as "Patient A") on 28 th October 2010. The Panel heard oral evidence and submissions over six days before determining on 11 th December 2013 that Mr Arun had conducted a breast examination in the absence of a chaperone and in an inappropriate manner and that his conduct was sexually motivated. As a result of the factual findings, the Panel concluded that Mr Arun's fitness to practice was impaired by reason of his serious misconduct. The sanction of suspension was imposed on 13 th December 2013.
The Appellant brings this appeal on the facts. Sensibly, he accepts that if I uphold the findings of the Panel, including that of sexual motivation, there can be no possible complaint about the determinations on misconduct, impairment and sanction. The Respondent invites me to reject the challenge on the facts and so dismiss the appeal. However, equally sensibly, Mr Hare for the Respondent confirmed that if I were to quash the finding that the conduct was sexually motivated the GMC would not seek to uphold the decisions on impairment and sanction, even if I upheld all other factual findings. In the circumstances, the challenge to the finding that Mr Arun's conduct was sexually motivated is by far the most significant aspect of this appeal.
The Court's Approach
An appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 is by way of rehearing ( CPR Part 52 DPD 19.2) but as Foskett J observed in Fish v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 1269 (Admin) at [28]:
"it is a rehearing without hearing again the evidence".
This Court will allow an appeal where the decision of the Panel was "wrong" or "unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings" ( CPR 52.11 (3)). Here the allegation is that the decision was "wrong".
CPR 52.11 (4) provides that the appeal court may draw any inference which it considers justified on the evidence.
It is well established that the court should give proper deference both to the Panel's specialist nature and to the fact that the Panel had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses give evidence. The leading case on the nature of the