This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Tribunal 'wrong' to allow doctor to continue to practise, GMC tells High Court

A doctor who was let off with a 12-month suspension after her actions resulted in the death of a six-year-old boy should be struck off 'to protect the public', the High Court heard yesterday.

The Court of Appeal heard that the GMC wants the Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service (MPTS) decision to be quashed and replaced with erasure because suspension 'is not sufficient to protect the public'.

But the barrister defending the trainee paediatrician, Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba, said she was a 'good and safe' doctor who had made errors due to 'systemic failures'.

Some 800 medics and other professionals have signed a letter supporting Bawa-Garba and more than 10,000 have signed a petition backing her, highlighting a large number of hospital trust failures.

Mr Justice Ouseley said before the appeal hearing began that that 'obviously this is tragic case all around and we fully understand that'.

Jack Adcock died as a result of a series of blunders from cardiac arrest brought on by sepsis after he was admitted to the Leicester Royal Infirmary in 2011.

Dr Bawa-Garba was later convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and received a suspended two-year jail sentence in November 2015 – a sentence which she failed to appeal earlier this year.

The MPTS decided in June that erasing the doctor from the GMC register would be ‘disproportionate’ and recommended a 12-month suspension instead.

But Ivan Hare, QC, representing the GMC, said the MPTS 'got it wrong'.

Mr Hare told the court: 'We say this is fundamentally a very straight-forward case.'

He added: 'The judge had correctly directed the jury [in the crown court] that the prosecution had shown that the defendant's treatment was exceptionally bad.'

Mr Hare also said that the judgment sentencing remarks had been ‘clear that the inevitable outcome in her conviction would be the end of her career’.

But Sean Larkin, QC, representing Dr Bawa-Garba, said: 'One has to ask why this good and safe doctor made these errors on this day, and we submit that the systemic failures are relevant.

'We submit that this did not go behind the jury's finding.'

Upon conclusion of yesterday's hearing, Mr Ouseley said the judgment would be reserved until a later date.

Charlie Massey, chief executive of the GMC, said: 'The court has reserved judgment in this case and we await the outcome…

'This has been a tragic case and we acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed by many doctors.

'Our decision to appeal the doctor's suspension was not taken lightly.

'We would stress that cases such as this, where a doctor has been convicted of gross negligent manslaughter, are extremely rare.'

Readers' comments (23)

  • I understand the Tribunal took into account the systemic failures in the hospital and the pressures on the day. Nothing can justify the loss of a young life but GMC trying to enforce their views on the Tribunal raises questions of credibility of both the GMC and the MTP.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Shocking reflection on the state of the medical profession in this country. There but for the grace of God go I and righteous doctors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I really hope the doctor has good representation too.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "trainee paediatrician"
    - So if a trainee has made a clinical error, then surely questions should be asked about the training and supervision provided, rather than making a scapegoat of one person.

    Who let this trainee on to the SHO/ registrar rota (interview panel, person designing the interview etc)? Should they be done for manslaughter or struck off?
    Who did their last supervision review/ ARCP? Should they be done for manslaughter or struck off?
    Who was the consultant that day, who delgated responsibility to this trainee? The GMC guidance clearly says that if you delegate (rather than refer) you retain ultimate responsibility for the action, therefore should this consultant be done for manslaughter or struck off?

    I am not trying to get everyone struck off, it just seems wrong that this particular person is being scapegoated.

    If the error was as a result of the trainee turning up drunk or taking a load of cocaine it might be a different issue. If it is related to clinical performance in a training role, then the other people listed above should be considered just as responsible as the person that they delegated the task to.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This poor poor woman - didn’t the investigation find 80 odd systems errors? They were understaffed with doctors and nurses and she was hung out to dry for this, the jury weren’t even allowed to know about the systems errors as they had been ‘fixed’. So true all of us could have been in this position at one time or another - who reported her to the police in the first place???

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This could have been any doctor at any point in their career. I wonder what the GMC's real agenda is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely there is a need for an independent public enquiry into the GMC?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This indeed is a very sad case with no winners other than barristers.
    What means "the decision to appeal has not been taken lightly?" Who has pushed for it? Where is the transparency??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GMC policy direction makes me very uncomfortable. Is it a hostile adversary looming over my colelagues and I? The interest of public confidence in the system are not being well served by them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Happy to contribute towards crowd funding to support this doctors legal challenge against GMC, if needed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say