Dr Weledji has until 5 July 2004 to lodge an appeal against this decision. If the doctor does not appeal, the indefinite suspension will take effect on 23 July 2004 when the current order expires. Dr Weledji remains suspended in the meantime by virtue of the previous order for suspension. No appeal was lodged against this decision.
Committee on Professional Performance
Resumed Hearing
Mr Elroy Patrick WELEDJI
Minutes of meeting held on 4 June 2004
at St James’s Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ
Adjudicating Panel: Ms A Leslie
Dr L Lodge
Dr A Taha
Mr P Conway
Mr D Smith
Dr A Murray-Wilson
Legal Assessor: Mr Alan Evans
Specialist Adviser: Mr Ian Wallace
Committee Secretary: Miss Dawn Magill
The Committee considered the following case:
Dr Elroy Patrick WELEDJI, MB BCh 1992 N U Irel
Registration number: 4394196
This was a resumed hearing of Dr Weledji’s case.
Dr Weledji was not present and was not represented.
Mr Craig Shepton, QC, instructed by Janet Gray, GMC In House Legal Team, appeared for the General Medical Council.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, the Chairman announced the Committee’s decision. The Chairman’s announcement is annexed to these minutes
Confirmed:
|
June 2004 |
Chairman |
Resumed Hearing
4 June 2004
Announcement by the Chairman of the Committee on Professional Performance in the case of Mr Elroy Patrick WELEDJI:
Mr Sephton
The Committee have proceeded to hear Mr Weledji’s case in his absence having satisfied themselves that all reasonable efforts have been made, in accordance with Rule 31 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 of the Performance Rules, to provide him with notice of today’s hearing.
At the hearing of Mr Weledji’s case in November 2001, the Committee found that the standard of his performance had been seriously deficient. The Committee determined that it was necessary to suspend his registration for a period of 6 months, and gave him indications of the steps he should take in order to improve his performance. Mr Weledji was told that the case would be resumed before the end of the 6 month period. The Committee suggested that, before the resumed hearing, Mr Weledji initiate an approved structured educational plan to include the appointment, approved by a Postgraduate Dean, of an appropriate experienced educational supervisor with whom he should discuss his training needs and who should approve his educational plan.
When the Committee resumed the case in May 2002, they found that Mr Weledji had not provided any evidence which indicated that he had carried out any of the recommendations directed at the hearing in November 2001 and because of this directed that his registration be suspended for a further period of 12 months. In doing so the Committee suggested that Mr Weledji should undertake the recommendations outlined by the Committee in their determination in November 2001.
The Committee met again in June 2003 at a resumed hearing to consider Mr Weledji’s case. They noted with concern that there was no evidence that Mr Weledji had taken steps to improve his performance and no evidence that indicated that he had carried out any of the recommendations suggested at previous hearings. The Committee again suspended Mr Weledji’s registration for a further period of 12 months with a resumed hearing before the expiry of the period. The Committee again made suggestions about the steps Mr Weledji should take to improve his performance and those recommendations echoed the suggestions made at previous hearings.
The Committee have noted the findings made by previous Committees. These indicate that Mr Weledji lacks understanding of the limits of his professional competence, and that the concerns about his professional performance are serious and widespread. They considered that, if allowed to practise without remedial training, he would present a significant risk to patient safety. The Committee have no evidence before them today which demonstrates that Mr Weledji has carried out any of the recommendations outlined at previous hearings before the Committee on Professional Performance. In these circumstances the Committee have determined that it is not sufficient to place conditions on Mr Weledji’s registration.
The Committee have considered whether a further period of suspension would be appropriate and sufficient in the circumstances of this case. Whilst the Committee acknowledge the difficulties Mr Weledji may have encountered with regard to retaining a visa in order to remain in the UK, they note that Mr Weledji has been given three opportunities to improve his performance but there is no evidence before them showing that he has taken these opportunities. Mr Weledji has been invited to make written submissions, if he so wished, which would be placed before the Committee. The Committee have not received any such submissions.
In the light of Mr Weledji offering no evidence of any attempt to address the serious deficiencies found, and the consequent need to protect the public, the Committee have determined that a further period of suspension would not be sufficient and they have therefore exercised their powers under Section 36A (4) of the Medical Act 1983 as amended, to suspend his registration indefinitely.
In reaching this decision, the Committee are satisfied that they have weighed Mr Weledji’s own interests against the safety of members of the public and the public interest. Furthermore, they consider that this direction is proportionate to the deficiencies that remain of concern to this Committee.
Unless Mr Weledji exercises his right of appeal, the effect of the foregoing direction means that his registration will be suspended indefinitely on the date on which the current period of suspension expires. In the event of Mr Weledji lodging an appeal against this decision, the current period of suspension will remain in force until such time that the appeal has been concluded.
Mr Weledji may ask the GMC for a review of this decision once two years have elapsed from the date in which this decision takes effect. If at that time, the Committee does not lift the suspension, Mr Weledji may ask the Committee to review the suspension again after a further interval of at least two years and thereafter at intervals of not less than two years.
That concludes today’s hearing.