R v GMC Ex Parte Remedy UK and R v GMC Ex Parte Pal. The Ultimate Dissection

Demanding Attention For This Boring Subject Related to the GMC. 

Richard Marks has always been a dish.  I think one of the most important aspects of my life is having the luck of associating with such dashing men. It is of course a hard life but someone has to lead it and it might as well be me. As most people will appreciate, I have my priorities in life - charming men being highest on my list of rebel accessories.

Marks has been busy. He has been fraternising with Peter Gooderham who I am not greatly fond of. Peter's days of claiming the success of pre-determinations appears to be over. Peter once did a rather overindulgent speech for the world but purposely missed out Pal v GMC 2004 during that speech. Anyhow, what can we say of a man whose best friend once suggested that I be referred to the GMC for the colours used on a blog [Oh yes, and we have the emails to prove this Peter]. It is therefore fascinating that he refers to my loss in court as referred to in this piece featured in BMJ Careers. This is what they state in their piece

"Secondly, the interpretation of the phrase “the doctor’s profession is incidental to the matter” has been made less easy to understand. It seems now that two doctors exercising huge influence over the delivery of health care are immune from GMC proceedings because their role is insufficiently close to patients. But this assertion (which is disputed by RemedyUK) cannot be reconciled with another GMC case, upheld by a High Court judge,[6] where it was ruled that a doctor who was no longer engaged in medical practice should nevertheless be investigated for possible misconduct after she had written something on a blog unrelated to medicine. This is completely inconsistent. Is there one rule for doctors working for the government, and a different rule for doctors who, in a manner wholly unrelated to clinical practice, express their opinions? Doctors and their regulators need new and explicit guidance on what sort of actions away from their clinical work can fall within the scope of fitness to practise"

I must though correct the above statement slightly here. Firstly, at the time I was indeed engaged in medical practice [ Psychiatry] and secondly the emphasis should have been on the fact that it was not what I had written on the blog but that I had linked to a public document. The "Link" was enough to engage a Stream 1 investigation meant for murders, liars and cheats. It should also be noted that in a case with exactly the same facts regarding Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, a white doctor who was the one who conspired to publish the document online, the GMC used the test in R v GMC Ex Parte Remedy UK and threw the case out. The other aspect of this case missed out by the authors was that the complaint was made by none other than the GMC's resident airhead latest child protection advisor  . We should be thankful to the airhead because she provides us with the best evidence we have to date of institutional racism in the GMC. The GMC's equality policy states as follows 

""Our Equality and Diversity Reference Group advises on the action required to fulfil our commitment to valuing diversity and promoting equality and helps ensure that equality and diversity is embedded in the development and review of policies and procedures across the GMC"

The GMC's own website refers to the following :-

"Respect the principles of good regulation: proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting"

Consistency is a important word. In fact it is a vital word. What is said by the GMC is clearly not what is done in reality. The GMC continue to be shameless of course. What the article misses out of course is this, that the GMC perverted the course of justice and presented two analysis of the word "misconduct" in two cases. Of course, in their tiny minds, they assumed that Richard and I would not know what they had done. What does the ruling mean for the average doctor ?. Here is what it means

1. If the GMC dislike you, if you are a junior doctor and if you are from the ethnic minority, you can be assured that the test of misconduct used for you when faced with a GMC complaint will be the more draconian one referred to by Collins J in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal. This is where the GMC simply has to disapprove of your conduct to instigate their proceedings. 

2. Liam Donaldson et al can enjoy the fruits of not being "Investigated" by the GMC. This means there is no obligation for the Liam to disclose this event on any application form.The documents submitted by Remedy UK will not be sent to all his employers. 

3.  What does a Stream 1 investigation mean for us average folk, it means we have to declare it on all application forms. We have to declare it on all appraisals and revalidation. The GMC will hold the event on their fitness to practise database making it more likely for any further complaints to be pushed through. The GMC will disclose the defamatory if not obscene pages created by the complainant to all your employers. You cannot remove these allegations even after the investigation is over. There is a high potential of these allegations spreading to most employers. 

4. It should be noted that in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal, Collins J tried to make up for the fact he invented his own test of "misconduct" especially for me. He tried to say that the word "proceeding" as referred to in all application forms did not mean investigations that did not reach hearing. He failed to read the law on this as exhibited by R v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Ex Parte Toth where proceeding commences from the point of commencement of investigation.It is therefore vital that no doctor relies on this judgment when asked to declare whether they have been subjected to GMC "proceedings". The safe alternative is to simply declare an investigation no matter how prejudicial this is. A lack of declaration will instigate a further GMC investigation for dishonesty.

Remedy UK's journey appears to come to an end in court. Mine though will continue through various forums. I refuse to accept that I and my friends and colleagues should be subjected to a different test of misconduct to that used for Liam Donaldson. My journey has just begun and this is the best evidence of indirect discrimination we have ever had against the GMC as an institution. It raises the question whether the GMC have historically been using variable tests of misconduct depending on who they like or dislike and who influences their decision making processes. The analysis of "misconduct" is pivotal to medical regulation. It is used by Trusts and the GMC. It could mean the difference between preserving your livelihood or destroying it. At present, I have no remedy for the fact I was fired from the Trust I was working for, never reinstated despite being cleared 6 months later. My declaration on any application form  is as follows

"I was investigated for breach of confidentiality and referring to myself as a Psychiatrist despite being an affiliate member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2007. I was cleared after 6 months of investigation. While I was being investigated, the GMC panellist, also the Medical Director at the Trust fired me on paper then manufactured a lie in court by saying I had resigned. As he and the Clinical Director failed to produce a resignation letter or indeed any evidence to substantiate their lie, the GMC used R v GMC Ex Parte Pal to investigate their misdemeanors. They were charged under Rule 7 of the Fitness to Practise Rules in 2010, three years after the event". 

Now, would any Trust now employ a person with that declaration? The repercussions of course would be that the Trust contacts the locum agencies, my previous employers and the GMC to obtain the entire file of allegations and court challenges. Would any HR manager consider this scenario created solely by the GMC to be a Trust liability or not?

Does this scenario engage a state of unemployability or not?

Remedy UK and I have had to swallow the bitter pill. Technically, their case should have followed the case law created in my case. The Courts though cleverly brought in a Lord Justice to create the test for misconduct for Liam Donaldson. The Lord Chief Justice's letter discovered by the Independent stated as follows

"All judges must, of course, be very mindful of how they express themselves when dealing with sensitive issues of equality and diversity so as not to create the impression that some individuals can expect more leniency than others". 

Really?  This is really not the scenario we see between myself, Aubrew Blumsohn and Remedy UK. I asked the GMC recently to just admit that they invented the Rita Pal special test just for me and every other person they dislike. They remain tight lipped. Amazing how quiet they can be when they have dug themselves into their own pit.

Out of all this, I believe the best things to come out are as follows. R v GMC Ex Parte Remedy UK is the case law that can be used by any doctor to protect themselves from the wrath of the GMC. This is something that does not come across in the BMJ piece. I hope to obtain further protection through various approaches I have made in my continuing journey to achieve some modium of justice.

With respect to Richard Marks. Apart from his good looks and charming self, I have always appreciated  the fact that he gave me one more chance to be his friend. There are perks to being Richard's friend. I get to platonically lush over his brain power and his sense of humour :). What a way to live eh!  Of course, of late I have been a bit put out by the fact he has resorted to the arms of numerous Greek Goddesses and their ample busts  :).  The worst thing about associating with a married man and admiring him from afar is the fact that I shall never ever get the opportunity to tie him up with my wonderbra. That suggestion may well get me whipped by his wife's Gucci handbag :). Fantasy is a fabulous thing in the kind of prison the GMC has thrown me in. Richard appreciates that women like me cannot just live on bread and water alone :).Perhaps  Dr Marks would like to come up and see my collection of GMC case law sometime :).