Aga was wrong: “time served” on an immediate order pending appeal should not be deducted from a suspension order

The matter was recently considered in another High Court appeal, in which Mr Justice Morris concluded that the decision in Aga was wrong. PSA v GDC and Danial/Danial v GDC [2024] EWHC 2610 (Admin) involved:

• A PSA challenge to a GDC panel’s decision to impose a five-month suspension order in a case of proven and un-admitted sexual misconduct towards colleagues. Although Morris J upheld some of the PSA’s grounds, he concluded that the sanction was not wrong. He decided that the GDC panel had provided adequate reasons and applied the GDC’s sanctions guidance correctly. Having done so, the panel was entitled to conclude that the case did not require the sanction of erasure. Morris J made the point that not any sexual misconduct necessarily leads to erasure, and the panel’s conclusion that the conduct found proved fell at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness was reasonable.
• A registrant appeal against various findings made by the panel. The registrant appeal included the argument that time served on an immediate suspension order pending the appeal hearing should be counted towards the 5-month suspension order. Morris J conducted a fresh analysis of all of the case law and the GDC’s legislation, and concluded that it did not support the decision made in Aga. He considered that the use of distinct terminology in the legislation demonstrated that there was not only one suspension. He also noted that:

Morris J considered the position on precedent, and concluded that he should follow the decision in Aga unless there was a powerful reason not to do so, and that deciding that Aga was wrong amounted to a powerful reason.

As we noted in December 2023, these cases highlight a potential source of unfairness that can only be resolved by regulatory reform.

For more information about our regulatory team and lawyers, click here.