This is an update on our fitness to practise appeals (so no publication to download) from May to July 2026.
Recent appeals
In the past few months, we have concluded one appeal of final fitness to practise decisions by the regulators we oversee; as well as one Court of Appeal case. We have appealed these decisions based on our belief that they were insufficient to protect the public.
The cases we have appealed involved:
- a registrant who behaved inappropriately towards colleagues and patients, including in a sexually motivated manner
- a registrant who engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a young, vulnerable patient.
Recent Court Hearings
General Dental Council
An appeal involving a registrant who behaved inappropriately towards junior female colleagues and patients
We appealed a General Dental Council (GDC) decision to impose a sanction of a six-month suspension order against the registrant.
This was a case concerning a pattern of conduct extending over three years and included allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards junior female colleagues and patients, including conduct which was sexually motivated and/or discriminatory.
We brought six grounds in total, relating to the Committee’s conclusions as to the facts (including failure to find that certain elements of the misconduct were sexual in nature) and also in respect of the sanction handed down. This included that the Committee had failed to grapple with the seriousness of the misconduct as alleged and/or impose a sanction of erasure (removal from the GDC’s register). The PSA grounds also asserted that the GDC had under-prosecuted the case by failing to allege sexual harassment.
The Court upheld each of the the grounds except in relation to under prosecution. It also separately did not address our ground concerning erasure, as it was considered unnecessary given the Judge’s conclusion to remit the decision back to the GDC. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed and amended aspects of the fact determination and remitted the case back to a fresh committee of the GDC to determine the sanction.
General Medical Council
A Court of Appeal hearing involving a doctor who pursued a relationship with a highly vulnerable and very young patient
Following the dismissal of the PSA’s appeal in a GMC case, the PSA sought permission to appeal the High Court decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal.
This is a case in which it was alleged that the registrant engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a highly vulnerable patient when she was 13 years old, then used his position to pursue an improper emotional relationship with her when she was 16. He then pursued a sexual relationship with her before she turned 18 years old, and subsequently entered into a sexual relationship with her from the age of 18 years. The Tribunal imposed a sanction of 12 months suspension with a review (which has subsequently occurred and concluded with no further action). The PSA appeal included grounds that the sanction was insufficient given how serious the allegations were (and these allegations were found proven). We believed that the Tribunal had erred in its finding that the doctor had not exploited the patient’s vulnerability. The High Court determined that the Tribunal’s decision was sufficient and had sufficiently taken the patient’s vulnerability into account. The PSA subsequently challenged the High Court judgment, specifically in respect of the conclusion concerning whether the doctor had exploited the patient’s vulnerability.
Unfortunately, our application was unsuccessful, with the Court of Appeal concluding that there was no prospect of the Court concluding that the Tribunal’s decision was plainly wrong.