General Medical Council, R (on the application of) v Yousufuddin [2009] EWHC 1346 (Admin)

Case No CO/3482/2009[2009] EWHC 1346 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Wednesday, 6th May 2009
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
SIR THAYNE FORBES
(SITTING AS A HIGH COURT JUDGE)
Between
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCILClaimantv
Between
DR SHAIK YOUSUFUDDINDefendant
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Marios Lambis (instructed by the General Medical Council) appeared for Claimant for The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
J U D G M E N T

SIR THAYNE FORBES: In this application, the General Medical Council (hereafter "the GMC") seeks an extension of the interim order of suspension made by its Interim Orders Panel on 12th November 2007 under section 41A(6) and (7) of the Medical Act 1983 for a further period of 12 months from 12th May 2009.

[2]The Interim Orders Panel, in deciding whether under section 41A of the 1983 Act as amended it is necessary for the protection of the public or otherwise in the public interest or is in the interest of a fully registered person for that registration to be suspended, applies a test expressed in the following terms:
"If the IOP [or the Interim Orders Panel] is satisfied: (a) in all the circumstances that there may be a impairment of the doctor's fitness to practise which poses a real risk to members of the public, or may adversely affect the public interest or the interests of the practitioner; and (b) after balancing the interests of the doctor and the interests of the public, that an interim order is necessary to guard against such a risk; the appropriate order should be made."
That quotation is taken from paragraph 1 of the very helpful written skeleton argument prepared by Mr Lambis on behalf of the applicant.[3]The doctor who is the subject of the current order came to the attention of the GMC in August 2007 as a result of a referral from the relevant Primary Care Trust, NHS Lothian. The referral concerned the fact that the doctor was the subject of a police investigation into an alleged attempted murder of his youngest child. The matter is currently dormant because the doctor has left the country and is believed to have returned to India.[4]The circumstances relating to the criminal investigation and the factual background to it are very helpfully summarised in paragraph 5 of Mr Lambis' written skeleton argument, to which I refer and which I adopt but do not quote, since in my judgment it is not necessary to lengthen the oral delivery of this judgment by simply reading out those details. The basis of the allegations themselves against the doctor are set out in the greater detail in the two witness statements of Mr Charles Andrew Owen, which are to be found at tabs 3 and 4 of the court bundle. Again I refer to them and adopt them but do not repeat them. Subsequent to the last hearing before the Interim Orders Panel on 25th March 2009, at which date the existing order was extended by the Panel, the GMC has received an email communication from Detective Inspector Morris, who is the officer in the case relating to the criminal allegations against the doctor, that the case against the doctor was in abeyance because he was not in the United Kingdom but that the case could be resurrected at any time. The decision as to whether the doctor was to be prosecuted in respect of the allegations would be made as and when he returned to the United Kingdom. Additionally, the GMC have been informed by the officer in the case that the Procurator Fiscal has instructed the police to retain all the evidence in the case for an indefinite period of time.[5]Having regard to all those matters, Mr Lambis submitted that the public interest includes the maintenance or high standards of conduct in the medical profession and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. Misconduct, deficient professional performance and adverse physical or mental health are three of the bases on which a doctor's fitness to practice may be found to be impaired under section 35C(2) of the 1983 Act. He submitted that this application for a further extension of 12 months to the interim order of suspension was manifestly appropriate in order to protect the interests of the public whilst the criminal investigations are pursued, to the extent they are pursued, and/or brought to a termination.[6]I am satisfied that that submission is correct and accordingly, for those reasons, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order sought and so accordingly I do so in the following terms: the order imposing interim suspension on the defendant's registration as a medical practitioner made by the claimant's Interim Orders Panel on 12th November 2007, maintained by the interim order panel on 29th April 2008, 28th May 2008 and 13th November 2008, due to expire on 11th May 2009, be extended for a further 12 months to expire on 11th May.[7]Now, are there any other applications, Mr Lambis?[8]MR LAMBIS: My Lord, it may be somewhat academic in the circumstances but I do make a formal application for costs.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Right. Of course, part of the problem with a summary assessment, is no doubt -- have you served any schedule on the claimant or any representatives?

[10]MR LAMBIS: Sorry, my Lord. We have, yes.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Who did you serve it on? Is that in Ms Oliver's witness statement.

[12]MR LAMBIS: It is, yes.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Can I just check? I do not doubt you, I just want to -- (handed)

[14]MR LAMBIS: If my Lord turns to the second page, in paragraph 5, my Lord will see the documents that were sent and if my Lord turns to the exhibits, in particular if I can ask --

SIR THAYNE FORBES: It does not actually refer to the schedule of costs though, does it?

[16]MR LAMBIS: If my Lord looks at -- it is not, unfortunately, numbered but exhibit JO/6 is an email sent by Ms Bhandari to the defendant.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: JO/6, right.

[18]MR LAMBIS: My Lord will see the attachment.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: I have not found it yet. JO/3, 4, 5, 6, yes I am there. Yes.

[20]MR LAMBIS: And if my Lord looks at that, my Lord will see the attachments that were sent on 22nd April, which include the consent order in the High Court PDF application and then about eight pages on at JO/9.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Yes, I have the attachments. Just a moment. Consent order, yes.

[22]MR LAMBIS: And, to make it even clearer, if my Lord goes to JO/9, which is eight or nine pages on, I hope my Lord will find an email going from Ms Bhandari to the doctor, dated 1st May, and in the attachments my Lord will see statement of costs PDF.

SIR THAYNE FORBES: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Lambis. Let me just have a look at the statement of costs. (pause) Very well.

[24]On behalf of the GMC, Mr Lambis applies for the costs of this application, such costs to be summarily assessment by reference to the statement of costs which he has produced this morning and handed to the court.[25]I am satisfied by reference to the information contained in the witness statement of Juliet Oliver, dated 5th May 2009, and in particular to exhibit JO/9 to that witness statement that the statement of costs has been appropriately served on the defendant, together with other relevant documentation.[26]Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed with the summary assessment. Having regard to the statement of costs in question, I am satisfied that the amount claimed is a reasonable and appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances, and accordingly I make the following[27]MR LAMBIS: I am very grateful, my Lord.

order

the defendant is to pay the claimant's costs of this application, such costs being summarily assessed today in the sum of £3,25.50 inclusive of VAT.