In General Medical Council v Donadio [2021] EWHC 562 (Admin), the Court held that a doctor’s personal dishonesty in knowingly practising in breach of conditions was not, however reprehensible, the primary mischief. Rather, the risk to the public lay in the deliberate regulatory breach. In this insight, Nimi Bruce sets out the background of the case and key points from the judgment.

Background facts

The General Medical Council (GMC) appealed under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) decision of 26 February 2020 to impose a suspension of 12 months on Dr Donadio’s registration. The GMC brought the case on the basis that the decision was insufficient to protect the public.

The allegation in the case was that Dr Donadio, a locum consultant radiologist, had breached the terms of an interim order, imposed on 9 July 2018. The order imposed, among other conditions, a requirement to notify the GMC in the event that Dr Donadio accepted a professional post and, further, to inform any future employer of the conditions imposed on his registration.

It transpired that Dr Donadio had accepted work at Kettering General Hospital as a locum between July 2018 and August 2018, in breach of a number of his conditions, in particular the notification requirements on his registration. An allegation of dishonesty was brought and proved on the basis that Dr Donadio had held himself out as able to practise without restrictions in circumstances where he knew this was not the case. The majority of the allegations against Dr Donadio were found proved, including the allegation of dishonesty.

The decision

Mrs Justice Collins Rice upheld the appeal on the basis it was insufficient to protect the public and the MPT’s determination on sanction was quashed.

Collins Rice J observed that the MPT’s Sanction Guidance did not address dishonesty of the type alleged in this case, in the section on dishonesty. On this, she cited the GMC’s submission that “regulatory compliance is so obvious and basic an obligation as not to need spelling out”. Mrs Justice Collins Rice observed that while “That may be true… The personal dishonesty, however reprehensible or intolerable in a professional in principle, is not the primary mischief. The future risk to the public is not that the doctor will lie or deceive. The risk to the public is that the doctor will practise contrary to their registration or licence status…charging dishonesty in such circumstances has a potential to distract from the substance of the matter.”

How Capsticks can help

We have represented numerous regulators for more than 20 years. With a large team of specialists, we help regulators to deliver the right outcomes, in the right time frame, on the right budget. Our practitioners have a vast amount of experience in drafting a wide range of allegations for our regulatory clients, including allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity.  We also have a large team of advocates who regularly present cases before committees and tribunals, and in the appellate courts.

For more information on any of the issues discussed in this insight, please contact Nimi Bruce or any of your regular contacts at Capsticks.