GMC Rule 12
Dear General Medical Council,
Please can you let us know, per year for the last 5 years; how many Rule 12 applications has the GMC received. Can this be broken down by type of applicants, and which of the three grounds were considered, and whether the application was upheld or not.
For clarification:
Applicants include: Doctor / defendant, GMC investigator, GMC prosecutor/sub-contracted barrister, GMC liaison service (backdoor service), Public complainant, Professional complainant, MPTS, or other groups you deem appropriate that I have not considered like police whom may or may not have made a Rule 12 application.
The grounds for a Rule 12 that, in the opinion of the GMC Registrar (may or may not be medically qualified), may consider is appropriate for a review is 12(3)– (a) necessary for the protection of the public; (b) necessary for the prevention of injustice to the practitioner; or (c) otherwise necessary in the public interest.
Rule 12 applications appear can be made in a variety of methods including: https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/get-involve...
I look forward to a response within 20 working days but understand you will delay and may look for reprisal for making open requests.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Ali
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]
Dear Dr Ali
Your information request - IR1-3230388196
Thank you for your email dated 7^th October 2021 in which you ask for the
amount of Rule 12 applications received by the GMC, per year for the last
5 years.
How we will consider your request
We’re going to consider 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
I will be handling your request. If you have any questions, please feel
free to respond to this email.
Remi Owolabi
Information Access Officer
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Email: [1][email address]
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 Remi Owolabi and colleagues,
I remind you that a reply for FOI request GMC 'number of Rule 12 requests with breakdown' promptly within 20 workings days, as normally required by law has not been provided. Please can you provide an update. If there is no genuine intention to provide the information promptly then you must escalate by internal review.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ali
Dear Dr Ali
Your information access request
Thank you for your email dated 7 October 2021, asking for information on
the amount of Rule 12 applications that the GMC has received over the past
5 years. I’ve considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA). I’m sorry for the delay in providing you with a response.
Due to a change in our case management system we are only able to
accurately obtain information from September 2017 onwards, which will be
provided below.
Please note that the term ‘Complainant rep’ can apply to a solicitor or
advocate/charity assisting the R12 requester. Also that the term ‘Other’
usually refers to where we have dealt with an R12 request following a
decision that’s been made relating to a social media concern. An example
of this would be where an individual has raised a concern about a doctor’s
tweet which is closed at triage, only for us to later receive an identical
concern.
To be clear, in each application, we consider all of the grounds, i.e.
whether the decision may be materially flawed, whether there is any new
information which might have led to a different decision (R12(2) (a) and
(b) and, if either of those grounds are met, whether a review is in the
public interest (R12(3) (a) – (c). In terms of ‘successful’ applications,
this would be the figure for reopened requests.
Table 1 is based on the year that the request was received and tables 2-6
represent decisions made within those years. Figures from the first table
therefore cannot be directly compared with tables 2 – 6. We have also
broken down the figures according to how we categorise the source of the
request on our case management system.
Year No of Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
2017 275 214 6 17 0 4 30 1 0 0 3
2018 505 399 5 6 1 4 74 0 10 5 1
2019 518 411 7 9 2 10 68 2 4 3 2
2020 464 374 6 25 1 2 50 0 4 0 2
2021 527 444 12 29 0 3 28 0 6 3 2
Outcomes by year/source
2017
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 44 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
review
Review 7 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
Not 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
reopen
Reopen 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
2018
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 283 5 0 0 0 29 0 2 0 1
review
Review 26 2 0 0 0 39 1 4 0 1
Not 11 0 0 0 11 1 2 0 0
reopen
Reopen 9 1 0 0 0 20 0 2 0 0
2019
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 419 6 0 0 0 25 0 2 0 2
review
Review 33 1 1 0 0 24 0 1 0 1
Not 18 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0
reopen
Reopen 13 0 1 0 1 21 0 1 1 1
2020
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 281 7 18 0 2 23 0 1 0 1
review
Review 31 0 0 0 1 24 0 1 0 1
Not 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
reopen
Reopen 9 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 1
2021
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 226 3 17 0 0 8 0 2 3 0
review
Review 26 1 1 0 0 9 0 2 0 0
Not 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
reopen
Reopen 12 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0
I hope you find this information useful. If you have any queries about
this, or need anything further, please contact me on the details below.
Yours sincerely
Remi Owolabi
Information Access Officer
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Email: [1][email address]
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 Remi Owolabi,
Thank you for the information below, as it is a little difficult to understand where the commas should be as it appears as a HTML table posted into plain text. Is it possible you can supply the information as a pdf or in any office file format.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ali
Data:
Year No of Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
2017 275 214 6 17 0 4 30 1 0 0 3
2018 505 399 5 6 1 4 74 0 10 5 1
2019 518 411 7 9 2 10 68 2 4 3 2
2020 464 374 6 25 1 2 50 0 4 0 2
2021 527 444 12 29 0 3 28 0 6 3 2
Outcomes by year/source
2017
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 44 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
review
Review 7 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
Not 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
reopen
Reopen 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
2018
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 283 5 0 0 0 29 0 2 0 1
review
Review 26 2 0 0 0 39 1 4 0 1
Not 11 0 0 0 11 1 2 0 0
reopen
Reopen 9 1 0 0 0 20 0 2 0 0
2019
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 419 6 0 0 0 25 0 2 0 2
review
Review 33 1 1 0 0 24 0 1 0 1
Not 18 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0
reopen
Reopen 13 0 1 0 1 21 0 1 1 1
2020
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 281 7 18 0 2 23 0 1 0 1
review
Review 31 0 0 0 1 24 0 1 0 1
Not 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
reopen
Reopen 9 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 1
2021
Decision Complainant Complainant Doctor Doctor Interested Internal MP Other Referrer RO
requests rep requests rep party
requests requests requests
No 226 3 17 0 0 8 0 2 3 0
review
Review 26 1 1 0 0 9 0 2 0 0
Not 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
reopen
Reopen 12 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0
I hope you find this information useful. If you have any queries about
this, or need anything further, please contact me on the details below.
Yours sincerely
Remi Owolabi
Information Access Officer
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Dear Dr Ali
My apologies, the website 'What Do They Know' can often skew tables and other information.
Please see my previous email attached in PDF form.
Please let me know if you have any further issues.
Kind regards,
Remi Owolabi
Information Access Officer
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AW
Email: [email address]
Dear Remi Owolabi,
Many thanks for the provision of this information. I presume GMC liaison service sits within 'internal' column along side social media concerns. It is clear internal requests are significantly more likely to succeed than the aggrieved complainer whom make most of these requests or the unlikely victim doctor (or even MP) requesting a Rule 12 for a case to be reopened. Responsible Officer Data also does not correlate but that may be due to the GMC liaison service acting on behalf of the complainer/(Ir)responsible officer.
Table 1 of years when Rule 12 review requested is very helpful but notice the subsequent breakdown tables which are the years in which decisions were made is particularly unusual as it appears their is an unlimited time to make a review (once a decision to conduct a review is made within 2 years of a decision).
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ali
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
S. Ali left an annotation ()
2017 version of GMC FTP Rules originally from 2004 can be found on: https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents...