Phillips, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council

Factual and Procedural Background

On 18th April 2002, the Plaintiff was acquitted on all eight counts of indecent assault at the Crown Court in Wales. These counts represented allegations made by eight different patients involving claims of indecent assault during intimate medical examinations. The Plaintiff was initially arrested in March 2000 in connection with three allegations. By January 2001, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had compiled complaints from 34 patients alleging indecent assault, resulting in the Plaintiff being committed to the Crown Court on 35 counts. The indictment was later adjusted to 34 counts relating to 32 patients.

In July 2001, the prosecution was ordered to select their ten best cases to proceed before the jury. The prosecution was unclear about the implications of this order for the remaining counts. Ultimately, eight counts went to trial, all resulting in acquittal. The court recognized an inherent risk that further trials on the remaining counts might not proceed due to potential abuse of process arguments, particularly concerning the publicity surrounding the initial trial.

Following the trial on the eight counts, the Crown Court judge imposed a stay on the prosecution of the outstanding 24 allegations, effectively preventing those cases from being heard. This left 24 patients whose allegations had never been publicly investigated. The judge’s comments at the stay hearing have been relied upon by the Defendant General Medical Council (GMC) to challenge the consideration of these allegations by the GMC’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).

The Plaintiff challenged the GMC’s decision to refer complaints for inquiry by the PCC, particularly focusing on five of the acquittal cases. The court limited its comments to essential observations concerning these five cases. The remaining 25 non-acquittal cases were considered by the GMC under its procedural rules and referred to the PCC accordingly.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the GMC’s Professional Conduct Committee may investigate complaints relating to allegations that resulted in the Plaintiff’s acquittal in criminal proceedings.
2. Whether the application for judicial review should restrain the GMC from proceeding with inquiries into the five acquittal cases.
3. The proper interpretation and application of Rule 11(2) of the GMC’s rules regarding the addition of further allegations after initial referral to the PCC.
4. Whether any procedural irregularities, including alleged denial of opportunity to respond, justify intervention by the court.
5. The extent to which abuse of process arguments apply to the continuation of disciplinary proceedings following criminal acquittal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The GMC had effectively screened out the five acquittal cases by not including them in the initial Rule 63 letter, implying these cases should not proceed.
• Proceeding with the five acquittal cases would amount to an abuse of process, given the Crown Court’s stay and acquittals.
• The application of Rule 11(2) to add the five acquittal cases later was improper because these allegations were known to the GMC since 2000 and thus could not be considered "later" allegations.
• The Plaintiff was denied a proper opportunity to respond to the inclusion of the five acquittal cases under Rule 11(2), constituting procedural unfairness.
• The GMC’s decision to proceed with the five acquittal cases lacked rationality and was procedurally flawed.
• Costs incurred relating to the involvement of interested parties should not be borne by the Plaintiff, as they were not invited by the Plaintiff.

Appellee's Arguments

• There is no legal barrier preventing the PCC from investigating conduct that was the subject of criminal proceedings resulting in acquittal, as established in precedent.
• The GMC did not make a screening decision to exclude the acquittal cases; the memorandum relied upon merely recorded submissions made by the Plaintiff’s solicitors.
• Rule 11(2) permits the inclusion of further allegations after initial referral if new grounds are adduced, which the letter from solicitors in November 2003 provided.
• Any procedural failures regarding opportunity to respond would at most require reconsideration or further representations, not a permanent stay.
• The abuse of process arguments are matters properly for the PCC to determine, given its specialized expertise and procedural independence.
• The hearing served a useful procedural management purpose, justifying costs being awarded to the GMC, with a fair apportionment reflecting the mixed outcomes.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the distinction between criminal proceedings and professional disciplinary processes, noting that an acquittal in the criminal court does not preclude investigation by a professional body. It highlighted that the PCC possesses specialized expertise and procedural independence to assess whether allegations amount to serious professional misconduct, even if criminal charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found no evidence that the GMC had made a definitive screening decision excluding the five acquittal cases; rather, the memorandum cited was a record of submissions by the Plaintiff’s solicitors. The application of Rule 11(2) was interpreted as allowing the addition of further allegations after initial referral if new grounds arise, which the court found was satisfied by the solicitors’ letter maintaining the complaints.

Procedural fairness was addressed, acknowledging that any failure to afford an opportunity to respond is regrettable but would not justify permanent restraint; such matters could be remedied by further representations or reconsideration. The court declined to intervene pre-emptively in the disciplinary process, deferring to the GMC’s committees to assess abuse of process arguments.

Regarding costs, the court recognized that although the Plaintiff was unsuccessful, the hearing served useful procedural management purposes benefiting both sides. It apportioned costs fairly, ordering the Plaintiff to pay 60% of the GMC’s costs but excluding costs related to the involvement of interested parties, which were deemed not attributable to the Plaintiff.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the application for judicial review concerning the five acquittal cases, allowing the GMC’s Professional Conduct Committee to proceed with its inquiry into those matters.

The decision confirms that professional disciplinary bodies may investigate conduct resulting in criminal acquittal, reinforcing the separation between criminal and professional standards. The ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness but limits court intervention in the internal processes of independent tribunals unless clearly justified.

The court also clarified the application of Rule 11(2) allowing the addition of further allegations post initial referral where new grounds are presented, subject to procedural safeguards. The judgment does not establish binding precedent on procedural management but provides guidance tailored to the case’s unique circumstances.

Costs were awarded to the Defendant General Medical Council with a fair apportionment reflecting the mixed outcomes and procedural utility of the hearing, excluding costs related to interested parties’ involvement.