Activist GP Dr Sarah Benn suspended for a further 12 months

A retired GP who was suspended from the medical register after taking part in climate change protests should be suspended for a further 12 months, a tribunal has decided.

Dr Sarah Benn, who took part in climate change protests at a Warwickshire oil terminal in 2022, was referred to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) for multiple breaches of a court order and was suspended for five months in April last year.

This year she was referred for a second MPTS hearing for her involvement in an animal rights protest in February 2023, which resulted in chalk spray damage at Sequani Limited in Ledbury, a company ‘involved in animal testing’.

Last week, an MPTS panel determined that her fitness to practise ‘remains impaired in relation to the misconduct’ found by the tribunal in 2024 and is impaired ‘by reason of her conviction’ in relation to the animal protest.

Today the tribunal determined to suspend Dr Benn’s registration for a period of 12 months and directed a review hearing should take place before the end of the suspension period.

It found that Dr Benn ‘does not present a risk to patient safety’ but there is ‘a limited risk of repetition’ with regard to the conviction and ‘a significant risk of repetition’ in relation to the misconduct under review.

MPTS tribunal chair Julia Oakford said: ‘The tribunal therefore determined that a period of suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

‘When considering the length of suspension, the tribunal found that a period of suspension of the maximum 12 months was proportionate in these circumstances.’

The tribunal found that suspension ‘could send a message to the profession’ and the public that her misconduct and conviction were ‘unacceptable’.

It added: ‘It could uphold and promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession and it could mark the seriousness of Dr Benn’s misconduct and conviction.

‘However, the tribunal noted that Dr Benn openly stated that she would not remediate, would disengage with her regulator going forward and continue to take action not in accordance with the law if she considered herself that her action was just and right.’

It found that the suspension imposed by the 2024 tribunal ‘had not affected her attitude towards the law’ and the expectation of a registered doctor to act in accordance with the GMC’s Good Medical Practice document.

The tribunal determined to direct a review of Dr Benn’s case and a review hearing will convene shortly before the end of the period of suspension.

Ms Oakford said: ‘The tribunal wishes to clarify that, at the review hearing, the onus will be on Dr Benn to demonstrate whether matters have changed.

‘The persuasive burden will be on Dr Benn to show that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired.’

In her submission to the MPTS, Dr Benn said that a further suspension for the review matter ‘would serve no purpose’ and she said she ‘will not be engaging in further proceedings’.

She stated that the tribunal members could, as individuals, ‘consider refusing to hand down a sanction’ to ‘signal’ to the MPTS and the GMC ‘the need for a different approach’ to addressing Dr Benn’s circumstances and the issue of climate change protests.

The MPTS document detailing the decision on sanction added: ‘Dr Benn submitted that in her opinion, it would be perfectly possible, even if politically uncomfortable, for the GMC to rethink the way that doctors like herself who have been suspended for similar actions are dealt with.

‘The GMC could use their voice to tell the truth. She said this is a medical emergency and the GMC could use their influence and time and resources in addressing this emergency in whatever way they can.’

Following the tribunal’s decision to suspend Dr Benn last year, which prompted doctor leaders to voice concerns, the BMA committed to backing Dr Benn by funding the appeal against her suspension. However, in January this year, Dr Benn’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

The GMC published a document last summer clarifying the threshold for investigating doctors who protest, saying that they have the ‘right to campaign’ but ‘must follow the law.’