"The purpose of FTP proceedings is not to punish the practitioner for past misdoings but to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise. The FPP thus looks forward not back. However, in order to form a view as to the fitness of a person to practise today, it is evident that it will have to take account of the way in which the person concerned has acted or failed to act in the past."
"The second purpose is the most fundamental of all: to maintain the reputation of the solicitors' profession as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth. To maintain this reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied re-admission… A profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires. … The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is a part of the price."
"Where a judge draws inferences from his findings of primary fact which have been dependent on his assessment of the credibility or reliability of witnesses, who have given oral evidence, and of the weight to be attached to their evidence, an appellate court may have to be similarly cautious in its approach to his findings of such secondary facts and his evaluation of the evidence as a whole."
"The need for appellate caution in reversing the trial judge's evaluation of the facts is based upon much more solid grounds than professional courtesy. It is because specific findings of fact, even by the most meticulous judge, are inherently an incomplete statement of the impression which was made upon him by the primary evidence. His expressed findings are always surrounded by a penumbra of imprecision as to emphasis, relative weight, minor qualification and nuance (as Renan said, "
"That general caution applies with particular force in the case of a specialist adjudicative body, such as the Tribunal in the present case, which (depending on the matter in issue) usually has greater experience in the field in which it operates than the courts."
“An appellate court must approach a challenge to the sanction imposed by a professional disciplinary committee with diffidence. In a case such as the present, the committee's concern is for the damage already done or likely to be done to the reputation of the profession and it is best qualified to judge the measures required to address it …”
“The Sanctions Guidance contains very useful guidance to help provide consistency in approach and outcome in MPTs and should always be consulted by them but, at the end of the day, it is no more than that, non-statutory guidance, the relevance and application of which will always depend on the precise circumstances of the particular case:”
"22. Like any judgment, the judgment of the Deputy Judge has to be read as a whole and having regard to its context and structure. The task facing a judge is not to pass an examination, or to prepare a detailed legal or factual analysis of all the evidence and submissions he has heard. Essentially, the judicial task is twofold: to enable the parties to understand why they have won or lost; and to provide sufficient detail and analysis to enable an appellate court to decide whether or not the judgment is sustainable. The judge need not slavishly restate either the facts, the arguments or the law. To adopt the striking metaphor of Mostyn J in SP v EB and KP[2014] EWHC 3964 (Fam),[2016] 1 FLR 228 , para 29, there is no need for the judge to "incant mechanically" passages from the authorities, the evidence or the submissions, as if he were "a pilot going through the pre-flight checklist." 23. The task of this court is to decide the appeal applying the principles set out in the classic speech of Lord Hoffmann in Piglowska v Piglowski[1999] 1 WLR 1360 . I confine myself to one short passage (at 1372): "
“20. The Tribunal took the view that sexually motivated conduct is not easily remediable. However, it recognised the steps that Dr Awan has taken towards remediation. It noted from Dr Awan’s GMC witness statement that he has completed a number of CPD courses to improve his knowledge and understanding of social media. The Tribunal considered that Dr Awan has made some efforts to reflect on his behaviour and has started to put measures in place to ensure that this conduct is not repeated. He told the Tribunal that he no longer uses chat rooms and has found other methods to ‘de-stress’. The Tribunal had regard to the positive testimonials provided in support of Dr Awan. It is clear that he is a well-regarded doctor and that there are no clinical concerns. The Tribunal noted that there is no evidence that Dr Awan has repeated his misconduct. For all these reasons, it therefore determined that the risk of repetition in this case is low. 21. The Tribunal went on to consider Dr Awan’s insight into his behaviour. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledged that Dr Awan has reflected on his behaviour, it considered Dr Awan’s insight to be limited. The Tribunal took the view that Dr Awan is yet to recognise that his actions towards Person A were inappropriate. The Tribunal noted that Dr Awan has not expressed any remorse or addressed the impact that his actions could have had on the public trust in, and the reputation of, the medical profession. The Tribunal determined that Dr Awan needs to develop greater insight in order to fully remediate its findings.”
“In reaching that conclusion the Tribunal took into account Dr Awan’s insight into his behaviour.”
“In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has taken account of the [Sanctions Guidance]. It has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, but to protect patients and maintain public confidence, although it may have a punitive effect.”
“11. The Tribunal considered the following to be mitigating factors in this case: • No evidence that Dr Awan has committed a sexual offence; • Dr Awan has made positive steps towards remediation and put measures in place, such as discontinuing his use of social media platforms to ensure this misconduct is not repeated; • There were opportunities for Dr Awan to engage in a more sexually explicit dialogue with Person A however he did not do so; • The sexual misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum; • No one came to any harm; • Doctor of good standing with an unblemished record; • The impact of the assault on Dr Awan in 2014. 12. The Tribunal considered the following to be aggravating factors in this case: • Dr Awan has demonstrated limited insight into the effect his conduct, including revealing his identity as a doctor, had on the public trust and confidence in the medical profession; • There has been no expression of remorse; • The findings of inappropriate behaviour and sexual misconduct towards Person A who Dr Awan believed to be a 13-year-old girl; • The Tribunal considered Dr Awan’s actions to be a serious departure from the principles set out in [Good Medical Practice].” • No evidence that Dr Awan has committed a sexual offence; • Dr Awan has made positive steps towards remediation and put measures in place, such as discontinuing his use of social media platforms to ensure this misconduct is not repeated; • There were opportunities for Dr Awan to engage in a more sexually explicit dialogue with Person A however he did not do so; • The sexual misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum; • No one came to any harm; • Doctor of good standing with an unblemished record; • The impact of the assault on Dr Awan in 2014. • Dr Awan has demonstrated limited insight into the effect his conduct, including revealing his identity as a doctor, had on the public trust and confidence in the medical profession; • There has been no expression of remorse; • The findings of inappropriate behaviour and sexual misconduct towards Person A who Dr Awan believed to be a 13-year-old girl; • The Tribunal considered Dr Awan’s actions to be a serious departure from the principles set out in [Good Medical Practice].”
“The Tribunal accepted that suspension has a deterrent effect and can be used to send a signal to the doctor, the profession and the public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting of a registered doctor.”
“The Tribunal took into account the seriousness of the misconduct. Whilst the Tribunal accepted that there was no victim in this case, it has found that Dr Awan made inappropriate and sexually motivated remarks towards Person A, who he believed to be a 13-year-old girl. The Tribunal was satisfied that action must be taken to maintain public confidence in the profession as well as to maintain proper professional standards. The Tribunal considered paragraph 149 of the [Sanctions Guidance] which sets out a wide range of conduct from sexual assault, sexual abuse of children to sexual misconduct. The Tribunal considered that the sexual misconduct in this case was at the lower end of the spectrum. The Tribunal also noted that many of the paragraphs in the [Sanctions Guidance] concerning sexual misconduct are in fact related to misconduct involving patients and were not relevant to this case.”
“150. Sexual misconduct seriously undermines public trust in the profession. The misconduct is particularly serious where there is an abuse of the special position of trust a doctor occupies, or where a doctor has been required to register as a sex offender. More serious action, such as erasure, is likely to be appropriate in such cases.”
“24. The Tribunal had considered whether to erase Dr Awan’s name from the Medical Register. In light of the positive testimonials, along with no evidence of repetition, the Tribunal carefully balanced the interests of Dr Awan with the interests of the Public. The Tribunal is of the opinion that Dr Awan’s misconduct was serious but falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The Tribunal took the view that erasing Dr Awan’s name from the medical register would be disproportionate, given the circumstances of this case and that a period of suspension would suffice in order to send a signal to the doctor, the profession and the public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting of a registered doctor. It also considered the public interest would be best served by not depriving the public of an otherwise competent doctor. 25. In all the circumstances, therefore, the Tribunal concluded that suspension would be the most appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.”
“The implausible, incredible and inconsistent explanations provided on oath to the Tribunal were plainly relevant to Dr Awan’s insight into his misconduct and the risk of repetition and yet the Tribunal failed to refer to this matter in its determination on impairment and then to reflect this aggravating factor in its determination on sanction.”
“Their Lordships enquired of Mr Greene, counsel for the GMC, whether it was a general GMC practice where charges of professional misconduct were being made to add to the factual allegations on which the charges were based an allegation of dishonesty in the event that the respondent doctor had had the temerity to deny any of the factual allegations. Counsel told their Lordships that it was not the general practice and that he was not aware of a previous case where that had been done. No explanation of why it was thought right to add the allegations of dishonesty in the present case was offered. In their Lordships' opinion the addition of the allegations of dishonesty in the present case was unnecessary and oppressive. The allegations added nothing to what would have been shown to be the degree of culpability of Dr Misra if the substantive allegations that he had declined to admit were found proved against him.”
“Dr X had instructed [counsel] to admit on Dr X's behalf that what the tribunal had found proved was serious and deplorable.”
“(a) A particularly serious departure from the principles set out in Good Medical Practice where the behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a doctor. … (d) Abuse of position/trust (see Good Medical Practice, paragraph 65: ‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession’). … (j) Persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of their actions or the consequences.”