Doctor’s Inappropriate Behaviour towards Colleague

A doctor’s appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against a decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) which found that his fitness to practise was impaired and suspended him from practice for six weeks which was yet to come into effect, was heard in the High Court: Wheatley v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 31 (Admin)  Foster J

The MPT found that on 9 November 2021 at a social event at the Tri Services Trainers Conference, the doctor had engaged in inappropriate behaviour towards his colleague referred to as Ms A.

It was argued on behalf of the doctor that the factual conclusions of the MPT were (i) outwith the findings of a reasonable tribunal, and (ii) not supported by adequate reasoning.

This was essentially a simple case. There had been a complaint about personal behaviour made soon after a work social event by a female person against an older male of higher professional status in circumstances where that male was alleged by the complainant and said by witnesses, to be worse for drink. The senior male had touched her, uninvited and inappropriately, she spoke to him and he desisted. The fact of him touching her was seen by more than one independent witness. He said no, it was an accident. He could not remember the touching, but he did remember he was trying to balance and steady himself because he was drunk, it was not deliberate at all.

The MPT believed the complainant and accepted the evidence of several different eyewitnesses and were unperturbed that there were some differences between the various accounts which they did not find material.

The starting point for a principled approach to a fact challenge was the recognition that the Court would be very slow to interfere with findings of primary fact.

Among the important primary facts that the MPT found were: throughout the night the doctor had harassed Ms A; the doctor was extremely inebriated and had sought her out; the doctor put his hands around her waist on more than one occasion; the touching was unwelcome as Ms A stated; it was a deliberate act by the doctor despite his intoxicated state; he had reached out towards Ms A with his left hand and made contact with her buttock; Ms A immediately asked him to stop; Ms A did not like the doctor touching her buttock.

Dismissing the appeal, her Ladyship said it was quite impossible to say that the MPT made appealable errors in their factual analyses or in the reasoning of their decision.

Crucially, the tribunal accepted that the complainant was a witness of truth. This deduction was well-supported by other facts.

There was ample material for the MPT to conclude that the doctor’s account was unsatisfactory: it emerged clearly from his approach to what happened, what he did and did not remember, and his reaction to her complaint.

Each of the foundations for finding the complaint proved on the balance of probabilities was set out in the reasons. It must not be forgotten that the primary purpose of reasons in this context was to tell the person who lost and why he had lost. It was clear beyond peradventure why the case was found proved.

Whilst it was impossible to impugn the findings or the reasoning, it was worth noting finally that the MPT also reminded itself that this was a case of sexual misconduct whereby the doctor had acted inappropriately towards Ms A with his actions being sexually motivated and amounting to sexual harassment.

Nevertheless, the tribunal considered that the doctor’s misconduct fell at the lower end of the spectrum of gravity in terms of sexual misconduct case. It noted that the doctor was heavily under the influence of alcohol at the time, there had been a single incident, and that he had immediately withdrawn his hand when asked to do so.

The tribunal was satisfied that the misconduct which it found was remediable, had been substantially remedied and that the likelihood of repetition was very low.