Dr Arowojolu (4467036) erased because of sexually motivated conduct - rehearings

J Roberts made this Freedom of Information request to General Medical Council

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

The request was successful.

Dear General Medical Council,

The High Court quashed the direction of the first tribunal that Dr Arowojolu's name be removed from the medical register - procedural error:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

The outcome of the rehearing was the same as the initial hearing - erasure:

https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod...

1. Please provide a copy of the initial hearing.

2. For each of the past three years, please provide the number of MPT decisions appealed to the High Court. Break down the figures to show who brought the appeals.

3. For each of the past three years, please provide the number of MPT decisions appealed to the High Court which resulted in the GMC initiating fresh MPT proceedings. Break down the figures to show the outcome of the fresh proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

FOI, General Medical Council

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.

show quoted sections

J Roberts left an annotation ()

The MPTS remove decisions from its website after a year, but here is how the fresh tribunal dealt with the forensic points made on behalf of Dr Arowojolu by his representative, Daniel Janner QC:

"85. The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence of Ms A with regard to the 2003 Allegation, the agreed statement of facts in relation to the matters established during the 2003 investigation (a document agreed between both Counsel during the criminal proceeding) and the submissions made by Mr Janner.

86. The Tribunal determined that, on the evidence before it, it was unable to reach a definitive conclusion as to the truth or otherwise of the 2003 Allegation either on the balance of probabilities or at all.

87. The Tribunal did not consider that the matters relied upon by Mr Janner necessarily led to the conclusion that the 2003 Allegation was false.

88. The fact that, despite a Police investigation, XXX was not charged did not, in the Tribunal’s judgement demonstrate that the 2003 Allegations were false. It had no evidence as to why, or in what circumstances, the decision not to charge was made. Even assuming that a view had been formed by the Police / CPS that the evidence was not sufficient to afford a reasonable prospect for conviction, in the Tribunal’s judgement, this would fall a long way short of an assessment that the allegations were false.

89. The Tribunal did not consider the fact that a 14-year-old girl delayed making a complaint against XXX, or that the abuse had occurred continuously for two years at times or places when XXX were nearby or, that XXX family members did not suspect that any abuse was occurring, were remarkable. The Tribunal considered that such features might be present in many situations where a child is being sexually abused by XXX."

(link to decision is available in my information request)

FOI, General Medical Council

Dear J Roberts,

 

Your information request – IR1-2867751650

Thank you for your email dated 25 November, in which you ask a copy of the
hearing for Dr Arowojolu (4467036) and the number MPT decisions appealed
to the High Court in the last 3 years and the number that resulted in the
GMC initiating fresh MPT proceedings.

 

How we will consider your request

We’re going to look at your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA). The FOIA gives us 20 working days to respond but we’ll come
back to you as soon as we can.

 

Who to contact

Matt McCoig-Lees will be handling your request. If you have any questions
you can contact him via email at [1][email address].

 

Yours sincerely

 

Lauren Barrowcliffe

Information Access Team Assistant

 

[2][email address]

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street

Manchester

M3 3AW

 

show quoted sections

J Roberts left an annotation ()

The case of Dr Sri Hari Charan THIGUTI 6094658 is interesting:

https://www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-dec...

'told Patient A that:

i. you liked white women; Admitted and Found Proved
ii. your relationship with your wife was not a good one; Admitted and Found Proved
iii. she needed to masturbate because it would be good for her pain; Admitted and Found Proved
iv. she should try and masturbate to orgasm; Admitted and Found Proved

23. Dr Thiguti accepted that patient A had always been a vulnerable patient and that he was wrong to have acted in the way that he did towards her. XXX. He accepted that he had manipulated Patient A for his own personal gains and in doing so had let the profession public and Patient A down.

52. .On 28 August 2017, you consulted with Patient A and you told her that she was:
a.attractive; Admitted and Found Proved
b.pretty; Admitted and Found Provedor words to that effect.

20. (page 22) The Tribunal considered that Dr Thiguti’s sexually motivated behaviour towardsPatient A breached a fundamental tenet of the profession and would be considered deplorable by fellow members of the profession.'

A lot more things were deterrmined and found proved.

Outcome - Suspension, 12 months

Matthew McCoig-Lees (0161 923 6579), General Medical Council

2 Attachments

Dear J Roberts

 

I write further to previous correspondence with a response under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. I apologise for the delay in responding
to you.

 

I will address your questions in the order in which they were made,
addressing the second two together.

 

1.  Please provide a copy of the initial hearing.

 

See attached.

 

2.  For each of the past three years, please provide the number of MPT
decisions appealed to the High Court.  Break down the figures to show who
brought the appeals.

 

3.  For each of the past three years, please provide the number of MPT
decisions appealed to the High Court which resulted in the GMC initiating
fresh MPT proceedings. Break down the figures to show the outcome of the
fresh proceedings.

 

Firstly, I should explain that some of this data is that which we provide
to the Professional Standards Agency. The definition of ‘year’  follows
their reporting year (Apr-Mar) rather than calendar years. I hope this is
acceptable. It relates to the number of appeals which were concluded in
each period.

 

I should also explain that when a matter comes before a judge, if they
uphold the appeal against the MPTS decision, they have the option of
either remitting the decision back to the MPTS or making their own
decision. Therefore, it’s important to understand that the number of cases
remitted back to the MPTS represents only part of the appeals upheld.

 

The GMC can also agree to a rehearing following a doctor appeal without a
decision by a judge and the data below for remitted cases includes these
matters.

 

Below is the number of appeals instigated on behalf of doctors which
concluded 1 April 2017-31 March 2020, split by reporting year with the
outcomes of remitted hearings where they have been held.

 

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Date |Number of S40 Doctor |Number of cases|Outcomes of |
| |Appeals concluded in |remitted to |Remitted MPTS|
| |period |MPTS |Hearings |
| | | | |
| | |  | |
|---------------+--------------------------+---------------+-------------|
|1 April 2017-31|25 |1 |No Impairment|
|March 2018 | | | |
| | | |  |
|  | | | |
|---------------+--------------------------+---------------+-------------|
|1 April 2018-31|20 |1 |Suspension |
|March 2019 | | | |
| | | | |
|  | | | |
|---------------+--------------------------+---------------+-------------|
|1 April 2019-31|20 |2 |Erasure |
|March 2020 | | | |
| | | |  |
|  | | | |
| | | |Hearing not |
| | | |taken place |
|---------------+--------------------------+---------------+-------------|
|Total |65 |4 |  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

 

Below is the number of appeals instigated on behalf of the GMC which
concluded 1 April 2017-31 March 2020, split by reporting year.

 

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Date |Number of S40a GMC|Number of cases|Outcomes of Remitted |
| |Appeals concluded |remitted to |MPTS Hearings |
| |in period |MPTS | |
| | | | |
| | |  | |
|---------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------|
|1 April 2017-31|25 |11 |Erasure x2 |
|March 2018 | | | |
| | | |  |
|  | | | |
| | | |Suspension x5* |
| | | | |
| | | |  |
| | | | |
| | | |Order Revoked |
| | | |(Combined hearing |
| | | |covering two cases) |
| | | | |
| | | |  |
| | | | |
| | | |Restoration |
| | | |Application Granted^ |
| | | | |
| | | |  |
| | | | |
| | | |Restoration |
| | | |Application Refused |
| | | | |
| | | |  |
| | | | |
| | | |  |
|---------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------|
|1 April 2018-31|5 |1 |Conditions |
|March 2019 | | | |
| | | | |
|  | | | |
|---------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------|
|1 April 2019-31|1 |1 |Suspension |
|March 2020 | | | |
| | | | |
|  | | | |
|---------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------|
|Total |31 |13 |  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

* In one of these cases the GMC successfully appealed the initial tribunal
decision at the High Court which directed a sanction of suspension should
be replace with erasure. The doctor appealed the High Court decision to
the Court of Appeal.  As a result the original Tribunal decision was
restored. This case is included only in the second table.

 

^ In this case the GMC was unsuccessful at High Court but successful at
the Court of Appeal which remitted the matter back to the Tribunal.

 

I hope you find this information helpful.

 

 

---

Kind Regards

 

Matt

 

Matthew McCoig-Lees

Information Access Officer

Information Access Team

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street

Manchester

M3 3AW

Email: [1][email address]

Website: [2]www.gmc-uk.org

Tel: 0161 923 6579

 

[3]Coronavirus email footer_artwork_5-01 REWORK

 

From: FOI
Sent: 26 November 2020 16:08
To: [FOI #708821 email]
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Dr Arowojolu (4467036)
erased because of sexually motivated conduct - rehearings

 

Dear J Roberts,

 

Your information request – IR1-2867751650

Thank you for your email dated 25 November, in which you ask a copy of the
hearing for Dr Arowojolu (4467036) and the number MPT decisions appealed
to the High Court in the last 3 years and the number that resulted in the
GMC initiating fresh MPT proceedings.

 

How we will consider your request

We’re going to look at your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA). The FOIA gives us 20 working days to respond but we’ll come
back to you as soon as we can.

 

Who to contact

Matt McCoig-Lees will be handling your request. If you have any questions
you can contact him via email at [4][email address].

 

Yours sincerely

 

Lauren Barrowcliffe

Information Access Team Assistant

 

[5][email address]

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street

Manchester

M3 3AW

 

show quoted sections

J Roberts left an annotation ()

The Record of Determinations is lengthy and detailed.

"103

5. d. rubbed Ms A’s clitoris and labia with your right hand; Determined and Found Proved

e. moved your left hand from Ms A’s lower back to her left breast and stroked it; Determined and Found Proved

f. said ‘yes, it’s nice,’ or words to that effect; Determined and Found Proved

125. Mr Janner commenced his submissions by stating that despite the Tribunal’s findings, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, Dr Arowojolu’s fitness to practise is not impaired.

127. Mr Janner submitted that a balance needs to be struck on the actual facts as with this doctor there is no risk to patients; “on the evidence he presents no risk whatsoever”.

129. Mr Janner concluded his submissions by stating that it would be a loss to the public and the profession if Dr Arowojolu was not allowed to return to work.

163. Mr Janner submitted that the Tribunal has a very difficult decision to make. He said that although the public confidence argument is relied on so heavily by the GMC, the public would also bear in mind that Dr Arowojolu is a “wonderful doctor and a wonderful man”.

166. Mr Janner submitted that these proceedings have had “a salutary effect” on Dr Arowojolu, but that through his Christian faith he has maintained his dignity and he would be able put all of this behind him if he was allowed to return to work."

Dear Matthew McCoig-Lees,

Thank you for your response.

I can download the decision, but I can't read the statistical information. It doesn't seem to be formatted correctly. Could you please resend it? It may be that I need special software to read the information - I don't know.

Yours sincerely,

J Roberts

Matthew McCoig-Lees (0161 923 6579), General Medical Council

1 Attachment

Dear J Roberts

Thank you for your email.

I think the easiest thing to do is to attach my response to you as a PDF. See attached.

Please let me know if this doesn’t clearly show the data you requested.

---
Kind Regards

Matt

Matthew McCoig-Lees
Information Access Officer
Information Access Team
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
Email: [email address]
Website: www.gmc-uk.org
Tel: 0161 923 6579

show quoted sections

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Another example of a serious sex offender having his name erased from the medical register:

Dr Manish SHAH

GMC reference number:4030108

https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod...

'2. The allegation that has led to Dr Shah’s hearing relates to his conviction and sentence for offences contrary to Sections 2 and 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. There were 90 sexual offences against 24 victims, including 53 counts of Sexual Assault by penetration contrary to Section 2 and 37 counts of Sexual Assault, contrary to Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

4. It is alleged by the General Medical Council (GMC) that Dr Shah was convicted of the above offences in the Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court at trials on 19 December 2018 and 10 December 2019. Further, the GMC alleges that DrShah was sentenced on 7 February 2020 to life imprisonment, with a recommendation to serve a minimum term of 15 years, and the notification requirements provided for by Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to apply indefinitely.

20. The Tribunal determined that Dr Shah has not accepted responsibility for his actions or expressed any genuine remorse for the offending. The Tribunal observed that Dr Shah has shown no empathy, contrition or humility. It has therefore concluded that DrShah has no insight into his actions.'