Search

Help finding what you want

Fitness to PractiSe Panel
19 APRIL 2007

Regent’s Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN

 

Name of Respondent Doctor:       Dr Philip Alan BARKER

Registered Qualifications:              MB BS 1953 London

Registered Address:                        Canada

Reference Number:                          0052203

Type of Case:                                     Review case of impairment by reason of misconduct

Panel Members:                                Mrs J Worthington, Chairman (Lay)
                                                               Dr I Berry (Medical)
                                                               Dr T Okitikpi (Lay)
                                                              
Legal Assessor:                                Mr J Widdup

Secretary to the Panel:                    Mrs Nilla Varsani

Representation:

GMC: Ms Kate Bex, Counsel, instructed by the GMC Legal Team, represented the General Medical Council.

Doctor: Dr Barker was not present and was not represented.

Determination on impaired fitness to practise:

Ms Bex: 

The Panel notes that Dr Barker is neither present nor represented here today. 

The Panel has considered your submission that notification of this hearing has been properly served upon Dr Barker and that the Panel should proceed with Dr Barker’s hearing in his absence.

The Panel is satisfied that the General Medical Council has produced sufficient evidence which demonstrates that notification of today’s proceedings has been properly served upon Dr Barker in accordance with Rule 40 of its Procedure Rules and paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4 of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended).

The Panel next considered whether it should exercise its discretion to proceed with Dr Barker’s hearing in his absence. It considered all of the information before it including the letters from Dr Barker, dated 15 February 2007 and 3 April 2007 confirming that he will not be attending the hearing today as well as the written representations made by Dr Barker. The Panel has further noted that Dr Barker’s registration is currently suspended and that the period of suspension is due to expire on 8 May 2007. In the circumstances the Panel has determined that Dr Barker has voluntarily waived his right to attend the hearing today and has exercised its discretion to proceed in Dr Barker’s absence, in accordance with Rule 31.

This is a review hearing of Dr Barker’s case. This Panel has been informed that Dr Barker’s case was first considered by a Fitness to Practise Panel in January 2005, when Dr Barker admitted and it was found proved that in 1999 and 2000 Dr Barker was a UK registered medical practitioner practising as a psychiatrist in Calgary, Canada. On 2 February 2000 Dr Barker attended the Delta Bow Valley Hotel, Calgary, Canada at the request of MB. At the hotel he met MB and Ms A, an undercover officer of the Calgary Police Service. They asked Dr Barker to obtain 1½ grams of crack cocaine from a drugs dealer and gave him $120 for that purpose. Dr Barker left the hotel and returned with two rocks of crack cocaine which he gave to MB and Ms A. Dr Barker’s actions in this regard were inappropriate and liable to bring the profession into disrepute.

The Panel in 2005 also heard of Dr Barker’s admission of his previous cocaine addiction and his subsequent rehabilitation in a specialist unit in Atlanta in the 1980s. It then heard details of the events leading up to this case in that he had made the acquaintance of MB some days prior to 2 February 2000, and spent a couple of days with her during which time he used cocaine. She subsequently took Dr Barker’s car without permission and kept a bunch of keys which belonged to him, including his office and filing cabinet keys. At the hearing in January 2005, the Panel accepted that Dr Barker was under some pressure to obtain illegal drugs in order that he might have his keys returned. It noted that he had refused to obtain illegal drugs on two previous occasions but that he finally succumbed to the pressure to commit an illegal act under duress from both Mb and the undercover policewoman. It had further noted that the proceedings against Dr Barker in Calgary of drugs trafficking offences, in relation to these events, were stayed. Having taken all the evidence into consideration, the Panel found Dr Barker guilty of serious professional misconduct and determined to suspend his registration for a period of twelve months. 

Dr Barker’s case was due to be considered again on 11 January 2006. As Dr Barker was not well enough to attend the hearing, it was adjourned, with the order for suspension being extended for a further period of three months.

Dr Barker’s case was reviewed by a Fitness to Practise Panel on 24 April 2006. Having taken into account the seriousness of the matters before it, the lack of independent and reliable evidence that Dr Barker had remained free from drugs and the scant objective evidence that Dr Barker had kept his medical knowledge up to date, that Panel found Dr Barker’s fitness to practise to be impaired and determined that his registration be suspended for a further period of twelve months.

This Panel’s task today is to determine whether Dr Barker’s fitness to practise is impaired. It has reviewed his case and has given careful consideration to all the documentary evidence submitted as well as the submissions made by Ms Bex on behalf of the General Medical Council.

The Panel has taken into account the Indicative Sanctions Guidance, in so far as it deals with the meaning of Fitness to Practise as well as Paragraph 32 which states:

”It is important that no doctor should be allowed to resume unrestricted practice following a period of conditional registration or suspension unless the panel can be certain that he or she is safe to do so. In some misconduct cases it may be self-evident that following a short period of suspension, there will be no value in a review hearing. In most cases, however, where a period of suspension is imposed and in all cases where conditions have been imposed the panel will need to be reassured that the doctor is fit to resume practice either unrestricted or with conditions or further conditions. The panel will also need to satisfy itself that the doctor has fully appreciated the gravity of the offence, has not re-offended, and has maintained his or her skills and knowledge and that patients will not be placed at risk by resumption of practice or by the imposition of conditional registration”

The Panel has accepted the advice of the legal assessor that a finding of impairment is a matter for the professional judgement of the Panel.

The Panel has noted that Dr Barker was informed at the hearing in April 2006 that prior to the next review of his case he would be asked to furnish the General Medical Council with the names and addresses of professional colleagues and persons of standing to whom the Council may apply for information as to his conduct since that hearing. He was also informed that the Panel may wish to see evidence that confirms his intervening good character and that it would be assisted by documentary evidence that he has kept his clinical knowledge and skills up to date during the period of suspension and objective evidence that he has remained drug free throughout that period.

Having considered all of the evidence this Panel is not satisfied that Dr Barker has met the recommendations made by the previous Panel. Dr Barker has failed to provide any objective evidence that he has remained drug free throughout the intervening period. The Panel is also concerned by the lack of documentary evidence to confirm that Dr Barker has maintained his clinical skills, in particular it has noted that Dr Barker has not now practised medicine in either the United Kingdom or Canada for some years and as a result of this his clinical skills are likely to have declined significantly. The Panel has accepted that Dr Barker may have kept his medical knowledge up to date by the reading of relevant articles and journals, as well as completing the fifth edition of his book ‘Basic Family Therapy’.

In all the circumstances of this case the Panel has determined that Dr Barker’s fitness to practise is impaired.

The Panel will now invite submissions from you on the appropriate sanction, if any, to be imposed.

Determination on sanction:

Ms Bex:

The Panel has already determined and announced that Dr Barker’s fitness to practise is impaired. The Panel’s task now has been to decide what action, if any, to take in relation to Dr Barker’s registration.

The Panel has borne in mind throughout its deliberations that any sanction imposed must be proportionate and that its purpose is not to be punitive, but to protect members of the public and the public interest in maintaining the reputation of the profession and confidence in it.

The Panel has taken into account the Indicative Sanctions Guidance published by the General Medical Council and notes that it is for the Panel alone to decide what sanction, if any, is appropriate.

The Panel has considered the submission made by you on behalf of the General Medical Council that the period of suspension should be extended. Dr Barker has submitted in his correspondence with the General Medical Council that he does not plan to do anything more than a few, brief locum jobs in the United Kingdom.

The Panel first determined that taking no action or to impose conditions would not reflect the seriousness of the matter in this case nor would it be sufficient for the protection of patients or in the public interest. Further, given Dr Barker’s stated plans and his continued failure to demonstrate a willingness to comply with the advice of previous panels, it would not be possible to formulate workable, enforceable and measurable conditions.

The Panel then went on to consider whether a further period of suspension would be an appropriate, proportionate and sufficient sanction.

The Panel has noted the mitigation that was advanced on behalf of Dr Barker at the hearing in January 2005 and has taken into account that for this hearing he has provided an updated Curriculum Vitae and has continued to remain in contact with the General Medical Council throughout the period that his registration has been suspended. The Panel has also been provided with some Certificates of Attendance for two conferences and two lectures attended between January 2005 and April 2006.  In a letter dated 3 April 2007 to the General Medical Council Dr Barker has asserted that he has attended weekly rounds in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Calgary Health Sciences Centre but has not provided any documentary evidence of his role or any learning arising out of this. The Panel has already accepted that Dr Barker may have kept his medical knowledge up to date by the reading of relevant articles and journals, as well as by completing the fifth edition of his book ‘Basic Family Therapy’.

The Panel has already noted that Dr Barker has not now worked in the United Kingdom or Canada for some years and has not provided any objective documentary evidence that he has maintained his clinical skills. Dr Barker has also failed to provide any objective evidence that he has remained drug free throughout the intervening period.

Balancing all of these factors, the Panel has determined that it would be sufficient and proportionate to extend the period of suspension on Dr Barker’s registration.

The Panel then considered what period of suspension would be appropriate.  The Panel has determined that Dr Barker’s registration should be suspended for a further period of twelve months. In coming to this decision the Panel has taken into account the length of time it is likely to take for Dr Barker to demonstrate that he has continued to keep his medical knowledge and skills up to date and that he has remained drug free.

A Panel will resume consideration of Dr Barker’s case at a review hearing to take place before the end of the period of suspension.  It will then consider whether it should take any further action in relation to his registration. Dr Barker will be informed of the date of that meeting which he will be expected to attend. 

This Panel considers that for that hearing Dr Barker should be strongly advised to provide the following:

a)         evidence from professional colleagues and other persons of standing as to his conduct since the start of this period of suspension;

b)         objective documentary evidence of the steps that he has taken to keep his medical knowledge up to date, for example production of certificates of attendance/completion for any courses that he has attended/ completed;

c)         objective documentary evidence of the steps that he has taken to keep his clinical skills up to date;

d)         objective documentary evidence that he has remained cocaine free during the period of suspension;

e)         an updated copy of his Curriculum Vitae;

f)          any other independent evidence which may assist the Panel in determining whether he is fit to resume unrestricted practice.

The effect of the foregoing direction is that, unless Dr Barker exercises his right of appeal, his registration will be suspended for a further period of twelve months commencing twenty-eight days after formal notice of this direction is deemed to have been served upon him.

The current period of suspension of Dr Barker’s registration will continue until the new direction takes effect.

That concludes the case.

Confirmed

19 April 2007                                                                                                          

Chairman