Repeated allegations of dishonesty result in being struck off

Case history and background

This appeal was brought by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) in respect of a decision made by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).

On 15 December 2020, the Registrant was referred to a MPT following allegations of dishonesty linked to previous proceedings. The MPT concluded that while the misconduct was serious, and remediation would be difficult, there was a potential for remediation, and erasure in the circumstances would be disproportionate. The MPT therefore imposed a 12 month suspension order.

The appeal

The PSA made its appeal on the grounds that:

• the decision of the MPT was flawed by reason of its own internal inconsistencies;
• there was no proper basis for the MPT’s conclusion regarding the Registrant’s capacity for insight and remediation;
• and the Registrant’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remediation.

The Court of Session (The Court) agreed with the PSA and allowed the appeal. They concluded that the Registrant’s persistent dishonesty was wholly incompatible with her registration as a doctor.

The Court concluded that the findings of the MPT that the Registrant had shown remediation in May 2020 was of no real relevance since this decision had been taken “in ignorance of her subsequent dishonesty.” Furthermore, the Court concluded that given the sustained nature of the Registrant’s dishonesty it was “impossible to say that there was truly any insight or potential for remediation.”

The Court in allowing the appeal substituted a suspension order for an order that the Registrant’s name be erased from the register of medical practitioners.

Relevant takeaways

This decision highlights that repeated and escalating dishonesty, of the kind in this case, is wholly incompatible with a Registrant’s continued registration as a doctor. It will therefore be difficult for a Registrant to argue against erasure or a striking off order where it can be shown they have been repeatedly dishonest despite previous findings.

The Court also found that the MPT had been wrong to give any significant weight to the previous findings of remediation and insight where the previous MPT had not been aware of the Registrant’s further dishonesty. This suggests that a Registrant will have difficulty relying on a previous finding of insight and remediation to show capacity for future remediation where the previous tribunal were not fully aware of any further misconduct committed.