GMC statement on appealing the outcome of Mr James Gilbert’s medical practitioners tribunal
Anthony Omo, General Counsel and Director of Fitness to Practise at the GMC said:
‘There is no place for any form of sexual assault, misconduct, or harassment in healthcare, nor for any form of racism or discrimination.
‘The GMC received a referral about Mr James Gilbert, in June 2022, and we swiftly took action to investigate fully, referring the matter to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service for a hearing. During the tribunal hearing we argued that Mr Gilbert should be erased from the medical register because his actions were fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The tribunal imposed an eight-month suspension, which we do not believe is sufficient to protect the public, and that is why we have appealed.
‘We thank the doctors who came forward to raise these serious concerns about Mr Gilbert with their employers, and who assisted us in our investigation. It is concerning that such behaviours went unchallenged for so long and we will continue our work with colleagues across the health system to make sure everyone feels supported to speak up, and employers actively seek out and tackle unacceptable behaviours.’
-Ends
Background
The GMC’s investigation and the medical practitioners tribunal
The GMC received a referral about Mr James Gilbert, in June 2022, and a full investigation followed, during which the doctor had interim restrictions on his registration. At the conclusion of our investigation, we referred Mr Gilbert to a medical practitioners tribunal at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).
The GMC, following the medical practitioners tribunal's findings, made a submission for the doctor to be erased from the medical register.
A summary of the submissions made on behalf of the GMC by counsel, Ms Chloe Hudson, can be found on pages 128 – 130 of the written Record of Determination. This included that:
- Mr Gilbert’s actions were such that they were fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
- One aspect of his behaviour was that he had taken advantage of junior colleagues and carried out a course of significant sexual and racial misconduct that was incompatible with continued registration.
- Erasure was appropriate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
However, the medical practitioners tribunal decided to impose an eight-month suspension. Any sanction is subject to a 28-day appeal period. In this case the GMC has decided to exercise its powers to issue an appeal, on the grounds that the sanction imposed is not sufficient to protect the public.
It’s important to note that the MPTS holds tribunals that make independent decisions about doctors’ fitness to practise. The GMC will investigate concerns about doctors and if appropriate, refer them to an medical practitioners tribunal.
The GMC’s right of appeal
If a medical practitioners tribunal imposes a substantive sanction that is less than the GMC has submitted for (eg suspension instead of erasure), we will always review the case and make a decision as to whether it should be referred to our Executive Panel, who decide whether or not to appeal decisions by a medical practitioners tribunal under Section 40A of the Medical Act.
The Executive Panel consists of the Chief Executive and Registrar as Chair, the Medical Director and Director of Education and Standards and the Director Fitness to Practise (or their nominated deputies if not available).
We publish all Executive Panel decisions on our website here.
