Judgment
Mrs Justice Patterson :
Introduction
This is an appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 from a decision of a fitness to practice panel (FPP) of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) dated 6 th December 2013 to impose a sanction of erasure from the medical register of the appellant.
The appellant submitted that there should be a derogation from CPR 39.2 and parts of the hearing should be heard in private due to the need to consider personal medical information. The respondent did not disagree.
Given the nature of the information and the complaint from which the appellant suffered I agreed that the public should be excluded from parts of the hearing.
The finding by the FPP that the appellant’s fitness to practice was impaired is not disputed.
The appellant’s submission is that the FPP has imposed a disproportionate sanction, namely, erasure. Suspension was appropriate in the circumstances of the appellant.
Factual background
The hearing took place between the 2 nd -6 th December 2013. The appellant faced 14 allegations. Most related to, or followed on from, the appellant presenting a fraudulent prescription at a Sainsbury’s store in August 2012 in that although made out by the appellant it was for a fictitious patient and purported to be signed by a different doctor. The appellant intended to obtain and use the 12 tablets the subject of the prescription for himself. On the 3 rd January 2013 the appellant was cautioned for a criminal offence for fraud by dishonest false representation contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 in relation to the presentation of the prescription the previous August.
After the appellant’s arrest on the 3 rd August 2012 his house and car were searched and prescription pads found from seven other medical practices. The appellant had, on one occasion, written out a prescription knowing that there was no patient of that name and signed it with a false name. Again, he had intended to use the prescription to obtain listed drugs for himself. The other prescription pads had not been returned to the relevant medical practices.
Between the 1 st March 2012 and 7 th August 2012, the appellant had allowed his professional indemnity cover to lapse.
When the appellant told his fellow partners at his medical practice of his arrest in August 2012 he failed to inform them of the reason for it and falsely led them to believe that his arrest related to a road traffic offence. He failed to disclose h
