Anonymity + General Medical Council v X [2019] EWHC 493 (Admin)
Dear General Medical Council,
I recently learned that you keep MPT determinations for ten years:
'7. The GMC’s policy was not to delete such determinations after only [sic] year but after ten years.'
Kayode v Information Commissioner and the General Medical Council [2021] UKUT 86 (AAC)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
In the above decision, at paragraph 24, reference is made to General Medical Council v X [2019] EWHC 493 (Admin):
https://oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/uploa...
This case concerns anonymity.
I searched the medical register using 'X' but found nothing.
https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-...
1. I would like a copy of the MPT determination relating to Dr X. My understanding is that the anonymity granted to him should not render unavailable to the public a redacted version of the MPT determination.
2. How many doctors during 2019/20 were granted anonymity by the MPT?
Yours faithfully,
J Roberts
Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.
We’ll get back to you as soon as we can with a further acknowledgement.
You’ll usually hear from us on the next working day, but it might take a
little longer during busy periods.
In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website.
Thank you
Information Access team
General Medical Council
Email: [GMC request email]
Working with doctors Working for patients
The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.
Dear J Roberts,
Your information request – IR1-3039764517
Thank you for your email dated 4 May, in which you ask for a copy of the MPT determination relating to Dr X and the number of doctors during 2019/20 who were granted anonymity by the MPT.
How we will consider your request
We’re going to look at your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This gives us 20 working days to respond but we’ll come back to you as soon as we can.
Who to contact
Christine Abdy will be handling your request. If you have any questions you can contact her via email at [email address].
Yours sincerely
Lauren Barrowcliffe
Information Access Team Assistant
[email address]
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
Dear J Roberts
Your information request – IR1-3039764517
Thank you for your email dated 4 May, requesting a copy of the MPT
determination relating to Dr X and the number of doctors during 2019/20
who were granted anonymity by the MPT.
Please find our response attached.
Kind regards
Christine Abdy
Information Access Officer
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Dear Christine Abdy (0161 923 6421),
IR1-3039764517
Thank you for your response; however I wish to request an internal review.
You wrote:
'I can confirm that a Record of Determinations is held, but I am unable to disclose it to you because an exemption applies under the FOIA. Section 44(1)(c) FOIA provides an exemption if disclosure of the information would constitute or be punishable as a contempt of court. Contempt of court is designed to protect the integrity of court proceedings. In this case a court has made an order which restricts what can be published.'
The judgment concerning 'X' handed down by Mr Justice Soole protects the defendant's identity yet is publicly available:
GMC v X [2019] EWHC 493 (Admin) ANONYMISATION APPLIES
https://oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/uploa...
It is therefore possible to publish something about someone whilst simultaneously protecting the identity of the individual concerned.
I contend that you have mistaken 'anonymisation' to mean a 'blanket ban' on publication. If I could see the court order you refer to I may, however, be convinced otherwise.
Yours sincerely,
J Roberts
Dear J Roberts,
Thank you for your email dated 14 July.
We will be considering your email as a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) appeal. We have a target response time of 20 working days. We will endeavour to respond to you within this timeframe.
Julian Graves will be handling your request. If you have any questions you can contact him via email at [email address].
Yours sincerely
Lauren Barrowcliffe
Information Access Team Assistant
[email address]
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
J Roberts left an annotation ()
Request related to 'Kayode':
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...
Dear J Roberts
Please find attached my internal review response.
Yours sincerely
Julian Graves
Julian Graves
Information Access Manager
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Tel. no: 0161 923 6351
Email: [email address]
J Roberts left an annotation ()
I can understand the sensitivity surrounding this case - a doctor involved in the care of young children who:
'engaged in an online conversation of a sexual nature on the ...website with an individual who told you that they were 15 years of age. The tribunal found that during the course of a sexual conversation, you arranged to meet the individual concerned the following day for a sexually-motivated purpose.'
The failure to disclose may serve to fuel suspicions of the public.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
J Roberts left an annotation ()
Determinations are removed from the MPTS website after one year:
https://www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-dec...
A great deal of information about Dr 'X' from the MPT determination is included in the Judgment handed down by Mr Justice Poole e.g.:
'17 The MPT found all these statements to be untrue, misleading and dishonest. These findings of fact were announced on 22December 2017. At a later stage, the MPT summarised these findings as follows:
"In summary, the tribunal found that in June 2015 you engaged in an online conversation of a sexual nature on the ...website with an individual who told you that they were 15years of age. The tribunal found that during the course of a sexual conversation, you arranged to meet the individual concerned the following day for a sexually-motivated purpose..."'
'21 Noting Dr X's work in the paediatric field, the MPT continued:
"... While the evidence is that you mostly work with babies, the tribunal found that you pursued a sexually-motivated online conversation with an individual who told you they were 15 years old. The tribunal determined that the content of the conversation demonstrated a level of attraction on your part to young people..."'
'47 The tribunal concluded that it was:
"...satisfied that your dishonesty was serious and sustained in that you were dishonest to both the police and the Trust's official inquiry into your behaviour. As already noted in its determination on impairment, however, the tribunal inferred that once you gave the police a dishonest explanation for your actions, you were, in effect, trapped by that explanation..."'