The Doctors’ Association UK (DAUK) has today responded to the High Court judgment extending the suspension of James Gilbert.
Mr Gilbert, a former consultant transplant surgeon, was suspended for eight month after the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) found him guilty of serious misconduct.
At the time, DAUK wrote to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) to urge it to refer the case to the High Court.
DAUK committee member Dr Matt Kneale contended that erasure from the medical register was the only appropriate sanction.
Suspension
The High Court has now extended Mr Gilbert’s suspension to 12 months following a successful appeal brought by the (PSA) and the General Medical Council (GMC).
The case drew national media attention due to the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the widespread concern expressed by professionals, and the questions it raised about the fairness and structure of medical regulation in the UK.
Mr Gilbert was found guilty of multiple counts of serious professional misconduct over a period of more than ten years, including repeated incidents of non-consensual physical contact, sexually motivated remarks and behaviour, harassment, and the use of racially offensive language.
These actions were directed at multiple junior colleagues, took place in professional settings, and constituted a significant abuse of power and position.
High Court
The High Court upheld the original findings of fact made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, concluding that the conduct had seriously undermined public confidence in the profession and failed to uphold professional standards.
Dr Kneale said: “While we are disappointed the sanction remains a suspension rather than erasure from the medical register, we accept the court’s reasoning.
“We maintain that such sustained and inappropriate behaviour has no place in the NHS.
“In our view, the public is unlikely to be reassured by an additional four-month suspension, and concerns remain about the doctor’s return to unrestricted practice after just one year.”
Reform
DAUK is now urging ‘long-overdue’ reform of the fitness to practise proceedings in line with the Williams Review.
Dr Kneale said: “We also believe the GMC should not have appealed the tribunal’s original verdict.
“As the body responsible for investigating the case and referring it to the tribunal, it cannot simultaneously function as an impartial appellate challenger.
“This dual role undermines the credibility of the process and reinforces longstanding concerns about conflicts of interest within the UK’s medical regulatory framework.
“The PSA’s intervention in this case was timely and principled, and demonstrated that fair and independent oversight is not only possible but essential.
Williams Review
“As recommended in the Williams Review, DAUK urges the Government to accelerate long-overdue reforms to ensure that fitness to practise proceedings are conducted independently of the GMC.
“DAUK remains committed to standing up for those affected by misconduct in the workplace and campaigning for a regulatory system that prioritises fairness, transparency, and the protection of patients and professionals alike.”
Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder or by becoming a member.
