General Medical Council response to the decision of the ruling of the Information Tribunal

The General Medical Council (GMC) has disclosed documents following a ruling by the Information Tribunal.

The documents relate to the conduct of a former Fitness to Practise panellist, Christopher Brightmore, and the internal process undertaken by the GMC in 2004, when he was dismissed.

The dismissal arose from a Fitness to Practise case in January 2004 in which, Mr Brightmore sat as one of five panellists. The case involved the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (“CCHR”), in support of a complainant. The CCHR was founded by the Church of Scientology and claims to “investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights”. At the start of the hearing, the Chairman asked all down and took no further part in the proceedings. The case continued and concluded with four instead of five panellists.

A subsequent investigation in June 2004 by the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found that, at the hearing, Mr Brightmore had failed to disclose the full extent of his former links to CCHR. It also found that when he became a panellist in 2001 he had failed to inform the GMC of his association with the CCHR. Accordingly, his contract as a panellist was terminated. This decision was upheld following an appeal in July 2004 by Mr Brightmore to the President of the GMC.

GMC panellists are required promptly to disclose any information which might call into question their fitness and suitability. More particularly, they must immediately disclose any conflicts of interests and any association or connection with a person or organisation which might cause a reasonable and well-informed observer to consider that there is a real possibility of bias (whether through some loyalty or predisposition or through some financial, personal or other interest). The CCHR, as an organisation that is hostile to psychiatry, clearly falls into that category.

In response to a Freedom of Information request last year we initially refused to release a number of documents about Mr Brightmore’s dismissal on the grounds that releasing them would violate his right to privacy. We were supported in this by the Information Commissioner who upheld our decision on 20 July 2009. The GMC and the Information Commissioner felt that the disclosure of disciplinary material could breach the Data Protection Act 1998.

However, the decision of the Information Commissioner has now been overturned by the Information Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that under the particular circumstances of this case, disclosure would not breach the terms of the Data Protection Act.

As is clear from the 2004 documents, and as the internal investigation concluded, Mr Brightmore’s failure promptly to declare the full extent of his involvement with the CCHR, especially when asked to do so, showed that he fell short of the highest standards of integrity demanded by the GMC of its panellists.

The Information Tribunal did not examine any other fitness to practise cases on which Mr Brightmore sat, nor his initial appointment as a panellist. But the Tribunal raised the possibility that his connection to the CCHR might have been relevant in other fitness to practise cases in which he sat as a panellist, especially those involving psychiatrists or psychiatry.

As a result, we ordered a comprehensive review by external solicitors, supported by leading and junior counsel, of all cases in which Mr Brightmore was a panellist. The review scrutinised the transcripts or case files and found no evidence of any bias by Mr Brightmore against psychiatrists or psychiatry.

In addition, we have contacted all the doctors and complainants in those cases informing them of the Tribunal ruling and enclosing a copy of the decision.

Niall Dickson Chief Executive said:

“GMC procedures have been transformed in recent years and our panels perform an important and difficult job with skill and dedication. It is vital that all panellists are honest and open in their dealings with the GMC. We have written to them all reminding them of the importance of their responsibility to disclose any conflict or potential conflict of interest.

“The audits conducted by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence are clear that the profession and the public can have confidence in the way we manage  complaints about doctors. But we must never be complacent. There are lessons we can learn both in how we handle incidents like this, and how we ensure that we do everything possible to prevent them happening in the first place.”

-ENDS-