Nakash, R (on the Application of) v Metropolitan Police Service & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE COX DBE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Health Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the claimant, a doctor, sought to prevent the disclosure of materials obtained through an unlawful police search to the General Medical Council (GMC), arguing it breached his Article 8 rights. Despite acknowledging the unlawful manner in which the materials were obtained, the court held that the public interest in the GMC's regulatory function justified their disclosure. The court concluded that the material was relevant to investigating the doctor's fitness to practise and dismissed the claim.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Cox :
Introduction
There is a strong public interest in the General Medical Council’s performance of its statutory functions, as they relate to a doctor’s fitness to practise. The disclosure of material to the Council by other agencies, including the police, has an important role to play in the exercise of those functions. By the provisions of s.35A of the Medical Act 1983 , Parliament has granted a specific power to the Council (the GMC) to require the disclosure of information which appears relevant to the discharge of those functions.
The issue in this case is whether, as the Claimant contends, this Court should prohibit the disclosure by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) of material requested by the GMC, on the basis that it was unlawfully obtained by the police, in breach of the Claimant’s Article 8 rights; that it includes material of a highly personal and confidential nature; and that the material has no relevance to the issue of the Claimant’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner.
The Facts
There is no dispute as to the relevant factual background.
In June 2011 the Claimant was working as a Specialist Registrar in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of the Royal Free Hospital in London, where he had been employed for about four years.
On the morning of 5 June 2011 he carried out a transvaginal scan upon a young female patient referred to as “M”. Although he initially asked a female nurse to accompany him as “chaperone”, in accordance with hospital policy, it is not in dispute that the Claimant invited the nurse to leave at some point during the procedure, leaving him alone in the room with M. Later on that day M made a complaint of sexual assault by the Claimant in the course of this procedure and the police were contacted.
On the following morning the Claimant contacted the Medical Defence Union advice line and told them that he had been suspended following this allegation, and that the matter had been reported to the police. He was informed that the police might attend his home address to arrest him and was advised as to the importance of legal representation. He was expressly advised not to say anything to his employers or to the police without legal advice. In the afternoon of 6 June three police officers arrived at the Claimant’s home. The officer in charge of the investigation at that stage was a Detective Constable Ryan.
It is not in dispute, for the purposes of these proceedings, that the po