Rule 12 Submissions to the GMC.

The request was successful.

Dear General Medical Council,

In response to a Decision by the GMC to exonerate a doctor on the basis of a fundamentally flawed decision by a case examiner, notification was given that there would be a submission to the GMC under Rule 12. The Decision was dated in October 2021 and the person concerned advised a Rule 12 submission would made made in due course. Some concerns were raised with the case worker initially but it was apparent these were not a Rule 12 submission. A communication from a Senior Case Officer in the Corporate Review Team has been received stating that the initial concerns would be classed as a Rule 12 submission which they were not. The person has been advised they can add to these if they choose to. Please provide information as follows:

1) Is it the policy of the GMC to use information provided generally in a case as being in the nature of a Rule 12 submission?

2) Given that it is clear these concerns do not include a full summary of the failures, does the GMC have a policy of trying to pre empt a Rule 12 submission by trying to avoid having full details of the errors of fact and in law contained in the case examiner's decision?

3) It has been made clear that it is intended to make a Rule 12 submission and that it will cover all the relevant information to prove the case examiner's decision was fundamentally flawed. This would provide evidence to show the doctor was unfit to practice, the diametric opposite of the GMC's decision. In cases such as this, does the GMC have a policy of jeopardising a person's right to making a lawful Rule 12 submission?

4) Does the GMC resort to "dirty tricks" in order to thwart people from making a Rule 12 submission?

5) The person concerned has made it clear this is unlawful and unacceptable. Will their right to make a Rule 12 submission be honoured?

6) Is it the policy to intimidate people who make serious, justified, complaints about doctors in order to dissuade them from pursuing these? How many cases have there been when this type of action has occurred? Has anyone objected to it?

7) In view of the history of the doctor concerned, is there an influence of Freemasonry here?

Yours faithfully,

John Golding

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]

FOI, General Medical Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Golding

 

Your information request – IR1-3314965720

 

Thank you for your email dated 7 January 2022.

 

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

Mark Ellen will be handling your request. If you have any questions you
can call them on 0161 923 6347 or email them at [1][email address].

 

Kind regards,

 

Charlotte Adams
Information Access Team Assistant
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street, Manchester M3 3AW

 

Email: [2][email address]

Website: [3]www.gmc-uk.org

Telephone: 0161 240 8125

 

Working hours: 8am to 2.30pm, Monday to Friday

 

[4][IMG]

 

show quoted sections

Mark Ellen, General Medical Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Golding

 

Reference: IR1-3314965720

 

As you know, your e-mail of 7 January 2022 has been passed to me. The
questions you pose are copied below, together with my response  - in red
type.

 

1) Is it the policy of the GMC to use information provided generally in a
case as being in the nature of a Rule 12 submission? We do not have a
policy in this area but when an Assistant Registrar considers a request
for a review under Rule 12, they will consider all of the information
which was available to the original decision maker. This is so they are in
a position to assess whether the decision may be materially flawed.

 

2) Given that it is clear these concerns do not include a full summary of
the failures, does the GMC have a policy of trying to pre empt a Rule 12
submission by trying to avoid having full details of the errors of fact
and in law contained in the case examiner's decision? All requests for a
review are considered on their own merits. It is helpful when requesting a
review to highlight particular areas of concern so that the Assistant
Registrar can consider those concerns and whether they might amount to a
material flaw.

 

3) It has been made clear that it is intended to make a Rule 12 submission
and that it will cover all the relevant information to prove the case
examiner's decision was fundamentally flawed.  This would provide evidence
to show the doctor was unfit to practice, the diametric opposite of the
GMC's decision. In cases such as this, does the GMC have a policy of
jeopardising a person's right to making a lawful Rule 12 submission?
Please see my response to Q2, above. 

 

4) Does the GMC resort to "dirty tricks" in order to thwart people from
making a Rule 12 submission? All requests for a review under Rule 12 are
considered on their own merits and the process is available to anybody as
long as the original decision is amenable to review, such as a triage or
Case Examiner decision.

 

5) The person concerned has made it clear this is unlawful and
unacceptable. Will their right to make a Rule 12 submission be honoured?
The Rule 12 process is available to anybody and we will consider all
requests for a review.

 

6) Is it the policy to intimidate people who make serious, justified,
complaints about doctors in order to dissuade them from pursuing these?
How many cases have there been when this type of action has occurred? Has
anyone objected to it? We do not have a policy and we would not seek to
dissuade anyone from requesting a review.

 

7) In view of the history of the doctor concerned, is there an influence
of Freemasonry here? Our decisions are not influenced by any factors other
than the limitations imposed on us by the FTP Rules. We don’t hold any
details of freemasonry membership.

 

I hope that this is helpful. 

 

Kind regards

Mark 

 

 

Mark Ellen
Information Access Team
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester  M3 3AW
Direct Line: 0161 923 6347

 

[1][IMG]

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