"477. The Tribunal concluded that Mr. Gilbert had demonstrated a significant degree of insight and had taken a number of steps to remediate his failings. However, Mr. Gilbert's insight was not fully developed into the full extent of his behaviour as found proved by the Tribunal. He may benefit from further time to digest and reflect on the findings against him. 478. The Tribunal determined that, without sufficient insight into the full breadth of his misconduct, it could not conclude that the behaviours complained of were highly unlikely to be repeated. 479. The Tribunal considered that limbs b and c of the test set out by Dane Janet Smith … were applicable in this case… 480. In particular, the Tribunal concluded that the need to maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and the standard of behaviour within the profession, required the finding that Mr. Gilbert's fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct. Members of the public would not have confidence in doctors if the Tribunal regarded such misconduct, with evidence of further reflection needed and development of insight required, as not impairing a doctor's fitness to practise. 481. In the light of all of the above, the Tribunal has therefore determined that Mr. Gilbert's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct."
"91. Suspension has a deterrent effect and can be used to send out a signal to the doctor, the profession and public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting a registered doctor. Suspension from the medical register also has a punitive effect, in that it prevents the doctor from practising (and therefore from earning a living as a doctor) during the suspension, although this is not its intention. 92. Suspension will be an appropriate response to misconduct that is so serious that action must be taken to protect members of the public and maintain public confidence in the profession. A period of suspension will be appropriate for conduct that is serious but falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with continued registration (ie for which erasure is more likely to be the appropriate sanction because the tribunal considers that the doctor should not practise again either for public safety reasons or to protect the reputation of the profession). 93. Suspension may be appropriate, for example, where there may have been acknowledgement of fault and where the tribunal is satisfied that the behaviour or incident is unlikely to be repeated. The tribunal may wish to see evidence that the doctor has taken steps to mitigate their actions."
"530. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal determined that suspension of Mr. Gilbert's registration would be appropriate and proportionate in this case. It considered that suspension would properly mark the seriousness of Mr. Gilbert's misconduct, would protect the public interest, and would uphold and maintain professional standards in the medical profession. Further, a period of suspension would send out a clear message to the public, the medical profession, and Mr. Gilbert, that such behaviour is not acceptable."
"532. The Tribunal determined that the following sections of paragraph 109 of the SG were relevant in this case: "
"(1) This section applies to any of the following decisions by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal— (a) a decision under section 35D giving— (i) a direction for suspension, including a direction extending a period of suspension; (2) A decision to which this section applies is referred to below as a "relevant decision". (3) The General Council may appeal against a relevant decision to the relevant court if they consider that the decision is not sufficient (whether as to a finding or a penalty or both) for the protection of the public. (4) Consideration of whether a decision is sufficient for the protection of the public involves consideration of whether it is sufficient— (a) to protect the health, safety and well-being of the public; (b) to maintain public confidence in the medical profession; and (c) to maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession. . . . (6) On an appeal under this section, the court may— (a) dismiss the appeal; (b) allow the appeal and quash the relevant decision; (c) substitute for the relevant decision any other decision which could have been made by the Tribunal; or (d) remit the case to the MPTS for them to arrange for a Medical Practitioners Tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the directions of the court, and may make such order as to costs . . . as it thinks fit." and may make such order as to costs . . . as it thinks fit."
'You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients' trust in you and the public's trust in the profession'). e. Violation of a patient's rights/exploiting vulnerable people (see Good medical practice, paragraph 41 on children and young people, paragraph 87 regarding expressing personal beliefs and paragraph 90 regarding information about services). f. Offences of a sexual nature, including involvement in child sex abuse materials (see further guidance below at paragraphs 151–159). g Offences involving violence. h. Dishonesty, especially where persistent and/or covered up (see guidance below at paragraphs 120–128). i. Putting their own interests before those of their patients (see Good medical practice introduction on page 7 '
“164. In some misconduct cases it may be self-evident that, following a short suspension, there will be no value in a review hearing. However, in most cases where a period of suspension is imposed, and in all cases where conditions have been imposed, the tribunal will need to be reassured that the doctor is fit to resume practice – either unrestricted or with conditions or further conditions. A review hearing is therefore likely to be necessary, so that the tribunal can consider whether the doctor has shown all of the following (by producing objective evidence):” a. they fully appreciate the gravity of the offence b. they have not reoffended c. they have maintained their skills and knowledge d. patients will not be placed at risk by resumption of practice or by the imposition of conditional registration.”
“Ground 1 -- The Judge failed to address the first part of the fundamental question for a determination of the fitness to practise of a health care professional – had the First Respondent (“the Registrant”) acted so as to “put … patients at unwarranted risk of harm”; and/or the Judge then failed correctly to answer the question in accordance with his finding that the Registrant’s misconduct was capable of posing a risk to patient safety. ”
"40. iii) The court will correct material errors of fact and of law: see Fatnani at paragraph 20. Any appeal court must however be extremely cautious about upsetting a conclusion of primary fact, particularly where the findings depend upon the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, who the Tribunal, unlike the appellate court, has had the advantage of seeing and hearing………. iv) When the question is what inferences are to be drawn from specific facts, an appellate court is under less of a disadvantage. The court may draw any inferences of fact which it considers are justified on the evidence: seeCPR Part 52.11 (4). v) In regulatory proceedings the appellate court will not have the professional expertise of the Tribunal of fact. As a consequence, the appellate court will approach Tribunal determinations about whether conduct is serious misconduct or impairs a person's fitness to practise, and what is necessary to maintain public confidence and proper standards in the profession and sanctions, with diffidence…….. vi) However there may be matters, such as dishonesty or sexual misconduct, where the court "is likely to feel that it can assess what is needed to protect the public or maintain the reputation of the profession more easily for itself and thus attach less weight to the expertise of the Tribunal”……. As Lord Millett observed in Ghosh v GMC[2001] UKPC 29 ;[2001] 1 WLR 1915 and 1923G, the appellate court "will afford an appropriate measure of respect of the judgment in the committee … but the [appellate court] will not defer to the committee's judgment more than is warranted by the circumstances". vii) Matters of mitigation are likely to be of considerably less significance in regulatory proceedings than to a court imposing retributive justice, because the overarching concern of the professional regulator is the protection of the public. viii) A failure to provide adequate reasons may constitute a serious procedural irregularity which renders the Tribunal's decision unjust."
“18. The Tribunal considered Mr Gilbert’s current insight into his previous misconduct and was reassured by the lack of evidence of any repetition, as well as Mr Gilbert’s range of written reflections together with his oral evidence at this hearing into his insight which showed progress. The Tribunal was satisfied by Mr Gilbert’s reflective oral responses at this hearing particularly regarding his misconduct toward female colleagues and agreed that although Mr Gilbert faced serious sexual and racial allegations, he put in significant into his insight and made progress. 19. The Tribunal was of the view that Mr Gilbert had made effort into his remediation and could not see any other significant avenue for him to explore to gain further insight or remediate. ... 23. The Tribunal considered if a risk of repetition existed and agreed with regard to the evidence of current fitness to practise both documentary and oral, Mr Gilbert has done as much as he could do to minimise the risk of repetition. It concluded that the risk of repetition was very low. 24. The Tribunal considered Mr Gilbert’s impairment with regard to the public interest and noted that the object of these proceedings was not to punish Mr Gilbert but meet the engaged overarching objective and ensure that Mr Gilbert was fit to return to unrestricted practise. It took the view that the objective, reasonable and fully informed member of the public would agree that Mr Gilbert has undertaken comprehensive journey of insight and remediation and made significant progress. ... 27. It was clear to the Tribunal that Mr Gilbert has taken a great deal of time and effort to reflect upon those findings of the 2024 Tribunal and the High Court decision and the impact upon the victims, public, and the profession. 28. This Tribunal has therefore determined that Mr Gilbert’s fitness to practise is not impaired by reason of misconduct.”