Updated: 20-2-2013
Dr Peter Jefferys has been replaced as Chair of London Section 12(2) Mental Health Act 1983 Approval Panel where he disregarded equality laws and formulated a policy of indirect racial discrimination against locum doctors. Equality Human Rights Commission advised NHS London to collect ethnicity data so as to comply with Race Relations Act but Ms Wendy Hewitt, Director of Legal Enforcement is a woman, so she was ignored.
Even these days when there have been riots in UK with increased racial tensions, Dr Peter Jefferys is still a Fitness to Practice Panelist at the General Medical Council and I can see on GMC List of registered interests he has failed to declare at least two conflicts of interests contrary to GMC compulsory policy. One of the undeclared interests is that he worked for Complaints and Conduct Committee of Bar council and another his private interest in persecuting Dr Helen Bright who spoke with the press about inappropriate wearing of religious uniform by a social worker when working with mentally ill and harassment from management (includes him). Declaration of conflicts of interests is compulsory at the time of appointment as is the updating. GMC legal department now have great difficulty as what to do with him as he sat at over 100 Fitness to Practice hearings at GMC. Ouch!
Dr Jeffferys made a string of false allegations against professional women and made life hell for one of his juniors who was gay. Does being gay mean the same to him perhaps, as being a woman. Or is it that bullies just go for anyone they feel is vulnerable enough to be tormented?
Solicitor Yvonne Hossack complained about Dr Jefferys to GMC because of his lack of integrity (how true!) when he was acting as Expert Witness for her and writing about elderly people due to be relocated from residential home due for closure and against which she fought. Dr Peter Jefferys claimed elderly residents had a high risk of dying if relocated. When Local Authority (Bristol) who provided residential care for the elderly read Dr Jefferys report a bright idea popped in their mind to offer him some money. They asked him to be a joint Expert Witness. Dr Jefferys accepted the offer and changed his report stating there was no such risk to elderly residents any longer due to the work done. What matters was he right or wrong the first time when he wrote the expert witness report. Well, that is in doubt. In USA 800 000 elderly relocate each year without dying because of that. Solicitors, Media and public should not be misled by Expert Witnesses. As we age our risks of dying increase so any scientific study has to be large enough to detect statistical difference due to relocation. It did not happen by the time Ms Hossack's Expert Witnesses were writing reports for the court that elderly would die if relocated. Doctors are trained is statistics. But when writing expert witness reports....
Supreme Court removed Expert Witness immunity and now press may have opportunity to get some of their costs back. I am thinking of Daily Telegraph and the case of Sedley LJ. If Press was properly informed in the first place they would have been in the better position when informing public debate.
Dr Jefferys retaliated by making false allegations about Ms Yvonne Hossack to Law Society. He claimed she breached client confidentiality by providing GMC with her clients personal details in his Export Witness reports (which she had to do). GMC is entitled by law to know personal details of clients even without their consent. Press can get expert witness reports too but these are likely to be redacted.
Finally, in 2009 there was a hearing before Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in which Dr Peter Jefferys relied on his Witness Statement where HE GAVE THE NAMES OF THE CLIENTS himself to Solicitors Regulation Authority and they to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal at the public hearing. SDT relied on their Guide to Professional Conduct instead of law (Data Protection Act 1998) which is an error in law. SDT should have used Data Protection Act 1998 an din Schedule 3 conditions are set for disclosure of sensitive personal information. Public authority, such as Law Society, must act against their own code of practice when it clashes with law.
At GMC, as Fitness to Practice Panelist, Dr Peter Jefferys was quite partial to a male doctor Wasim Aftab appearing before the panel despite repeated offending which included violence towards a woman (so its OK then, and no sanctions for the doctor) but not so generous when it came to a woman doctor Lambe (No violence and yes, plenty of sanctions on her registration) in a similar case.
Hit the road, Jefferys!
Click on the photo below to listen to the great classic: Hit the road, Jack
FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL
11-12 MAY 2009
Regent’s Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN
Name of Respondent Doctor: Dr Wasim AFTAB
Registered Qualifications: MB BS 1998 University of Peshawar
Area of Registered Address: Middlesex
Reference Number: 5207750
Type of Case: New case of impairment by reason of convictions, caution and misconduct
Panel Members: Dr P Jefferys, Chairman (Medical)
Ms J Goulding (Lay)
Dr M Elliot (Medical)
Legal Assessor: Mr M Khamisa QC
Secretary to the Panel: Mrs N Varsani
Representation:
GMC: Ms N Bruce, GMC Counsel instructed by GMC Legal
Doctor: Dr Aftab was present and was not represented
Allegation
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended),
1. On 22 January 2007 at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted after pleading guilty of driving a motor vehicle on 7 December 2006 on Bolsover Street W1 after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 68, exceeded the prescribed limit contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988;
Admitted and Found Proved
2. On 27 January 2007 at Limehouse Police Station, you were cautioned by the Metropolitan Police for an offence of section 39 common assault in that on 25 January 2007 you assaulted Ms A contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;
Admitted and Found Proved
3. On 2 April 2007 at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted after pleading guilty of driving a motor vehicle on 7 December 2006 on Great Eastern Road, Hackney E2 after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your blood, namely 215, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section
5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988;
Admitted and Found Proved
4. On 19 July 2007 at the same court, you were sentenced in relation to the two convictions described in paragraphs 1 and 3 above, as follows,
a. You were fined £500 in respect of each conviction, a total of £1,000,
Admitted and Found Proved
b. You were ordered to pay Crown Prosecution costs of £50 in relation to the conviction described in paragraph 3,
Admitted and Found Proved
c. You were disqualified from driving for 24 months, with the period of disqualification to be reduced by six months if a certificate of completion of the drink/drive rehabilitation course was received by 13 November 2008, and
Admitted and Found Proved
d. particulars of each conviction were to be endorsed on any licence held;
Admitted and Found Proved
5. You have not informed the General Medical Council without delay that you were,
a. Charged with the offences referred to in paragraphs 1. and 3. above,
Admitted and Found Proved
b. Convicted with the offences as described in paragraphs 1. and 3. above, or
Admitted and Found Proved
c. Cautioned with an offence as described in paragraph 2. above;
Admitted and Found Proved
6. Your omissions as described in paragraph 5. above were not of a standard to be expected of a registered medical practitioner.
Admitted and Found Proved
And that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is
impaired because of your,
a. Convictions,
b. Caution,
c. Misconduct.
Determination on facts and impaired fitness to practise
Dr Aftab
At the outset of these proceedings you made a number of admissions. The Panel therefore recorded heads 1, 2, 3, 4a-d, 5a-c and 6 of the allegation as admitted and found proved.
The Panel has considered, on the basis of the allegation admitted and found proved, whether your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your convictions, caution and misconduct.
The Panel is aware that a finding of impairment is a matter for the Panel, exercising its own judgement. The Panel has a duty to protect the public interest, which includes the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
The Panel has considered all the documentary evidence that has been presented to it, including the submissions made by you and those made by Ms Bruce, on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC).
Ms Bruce has submitted that, given the circumstances surrounding your convictions, caution and failure to inform the GMC about them, your fitness to practise is impaired. In particular she underlined that your alcohol levels on both occasions exceeded the prescribed limit by at least twice and that the second offence which occurred shortly after your initial arrest and in the context of police warnings is an aggravating factor. Ms Bruce described the assault as grave. Your failure to report the convictions/caution to the GMC was a breach of paragraph 57 and 58 of Good Medical Practice (2006).
Following these submissions you chose not to give evidence at this stage but apologised for your behaviour and accepted that your conduct fell far below the standards of a registered medical practitioner.
The Panel has been informed that on 22 January 2007, at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted after pleading guilty of driving a motor vehicle on 7 December 2006 on Bolsover Street W1, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 68, exceeded the prescribed limit contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
On 2 April 2007 at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted after pleading guilty of driving a motor vehicle on 7 December 2006 on Great Eastern Road, Hackney E2, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your blood, namely 215, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
On 19 July 2007 at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, you were sentenced in relation to the two convictions. You were fined £500 in respect of each conviction, a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay Crown Prosecution costs of £50. You were disqualified from driving for twenty-four months, with the period of disqualification to be reduced by six months if a certificate of completion of the drink/drive rehabilitation course was received by 13 November 2008, and particulars of each conviction were to be endorsed on any licence held.
The context of these two driving offences is that you were initially arrested at 02.43 on 7 December 2006 in Great Eastern Road and were released from police custody at Shoreditch Police Station with “numerous warnings not to return to your vehicle and drive”, due to your “still being under the influence of alcohol” (Police summary 7 December 2006). In spite of these warnings you returned to your vehicle and drove it. Your second arrest took place at 05.30 on the same date, when you were stopped by the police in Bolsover Street.
On 27 January 2007 at Limehouse Police Station, you were cautioned by the Metropolitan Police for an offence of section 39 common assault, in that on 25 January 2007 you assaulted Ms A contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Panel has noted the context in which the assault occurred. At the time of the incident you were in a relationship with Ms A and the assault occurred during an argument with Ms A. There is no evidence before the Panel of any substantial injury to Ms A. The Panel has further noted that the nature of the assault was an open palm slap to the side of Ms A’s face and that the police took the view that the assault was of a such a nature that it could be adequately disposed of by giving you a caution.
You accepted that you did not inform the GMC without delay, that you were charged and convicted of the two driving offences or of the caution in respect of the assault on Ms A. This omission is a clear breach of Paragraph 58 of Good Medical Practice (2006) which states “you must inform the GMC without delay if, anywhere in the world, you have accepted a caution, been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence, …”
The Panel has noted that your convictions relate to an incident that occurred in December 2006 and that you accepted the caution in January 2007. Not withstanding the date of the offences, in considering whether your fitness to practise is impaired today the Panel must reflect the public interest in the setting and maintaining of standards for the medical profession.
The Panel has considered the circumstances of your convictions, caution and misconduct. It takes a serious view of your conduct. In particular, in relation to your convictions the Panel has noted that the level of alcohol in your breath was approximately twice the legal limit. There are two driving offences that occurred on the same night and that the second of these occurred after having been warned by the police, on more than one occasion that you should not drive any vehicles. Given the seriousness of your convictions, the Panel is also concerned by your failure to disclose these convictions to the GMC.
Your conduct brings the medical profession into disrepute and undermines the confidence and trust that the public is entitled to have in medical practitioners. Doctors occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times to act with integrity. They must make sure that their conduct at all times justifies both their patients’ and the public’s trust in the profession.
In the light of its findings, and in particular the nature of your convictions, the Panel has concluded that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your convictions, caution and misconduct.
The Panel will now invite further submissions, under Rule 17(2)(l), from Ms Bruce and you, as to the appropriate sanction, if any, to be imposed on your registration. Submissions on sanction should include reference to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance, using the criteria as set out in the guidance to draw attention to the issues which appear relevant to this case.
Determination on sanction
Dr Aftab:
The Panel has already determined that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your convictions, caution and misconduct.
The Panel has considered what action, if any, to take in relation to your registration. It noted the submissions made by Ms Bruce, on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC) and those made by you.
Ms Bruce emphasised that the decision on sanction was for the Panel alone. She drew the Panel’s attention to the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance (April 2009) paragraphs 18-19, 21, 25, 32, 34, 49, 69, 89 and 90. She invited the Panel to consider making a direction of at least suspension. She submitted that a previous FTP Panel finding which amounted to an incident of bullying of a female patient followed so soon by the assault on Ms A should be viewed with alarm and concern.
Ms Bruce fairly said that the Panel should note the following mitigating features, that you:
• had fully cooperated with the police at the time of all three offences;
• had made admissions during the course of the police interview in relation to the assault on Ms A;
• admitted driving having consumed alcohol;
• had not concealed that you were a doctor from the police on any of these occasions;
• agreed to being cautioned in relation to the assault which involved an admission of committing the offence;
• apologised to Ms A immediately after the assault;
• pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol;
• admitted all aspects of the allegation at the outset of this hearing;
• apologised to the Panel and the public at large for your breaches of Good Medical Practice.
The Panel was informed that you previously appeared before a GMC Fitness to Practise Panel on 2-4 January 2007. At that hearing the Panel found that in July 2005 you attempted to pursue a personal relationship with a patient by repeated use of her private mobile telephone number. Your conduct was an abuse of your position of trust and a failure to respect patients’ dignity and privacy. That Panel determined that your fitness to practise was impaired and that your registration should be suspended for a period of two months.
The Panel noted the matters that you put forward in mitigation which were unchallenged by Ms Bruce.
You accepted at the outset of the hearing that the matters that have brought you before the GMC are serious and have apologised and shown remorse for your actions.
You told the Panel that the current offences occurred at around the time that you were before the previous FTP Panel in January 2007. You were under considerable stress in early December 2006 when you learned that there was likely to be adverse publicity at the forthcoming FTP hearing. You described this adverse publicity during and in the weeks following the FTP Panel and this was confirmed by Ms Bruce. The assault on Ms A took place during this period. You informed the Panel that your misconduct in July 2005 and the subsequent proceedings before the FTP Panel (January 2007) have had a profound impact on both your personal life and your career in medicine. You have had difficulty in obtaining employment and have suffered financial hardship.
The Panel noted that the two driving offences occurred on the same night in December 2006. The second offence took place very shortly after leaving the police station whilst your judgment was impaired by alcohol.
Your caution relates to an assault in January 2007. The Panel took into account the context in which the assault occurred. At the time of the incident you were in a relationship with Ms A and the assault occurred during an argument with Ms A. There is no evidence before the Panel of any substantial injury to Ms A. The Panel further noted that the nature of the assault was an open palm slap to the side of Ms A’s face and that the police took the view that the assault was of a such a nature that it could be adequately disposed of by giving you a caution. Ms A delayed complaining to the police for over 36 hours until your presence outside her house may have precipitated her complaint.
The Panel noted that both driving offences and the assault on Ms A occurred in a non-professional capacity when you were “off duty” and there is no evidence of any repetition of any further misconduct.
In relation to your failure to disclose to the GMC the two driving convictions and the caution for the assault on Ms A, the Panel noted that you did not at any stage
conceal your profession from the police. You also told the Panel that the police said that they would inform the GMC of your caution and convictions.
This Panel was not informed of any other issues regarding the performance of your medical duties or the care of your patients.
The Panel heard that you have maintained your medical knowledge and skills by undertaking locum work as a Senior House Officer in colo-rectal and vascular surgery in the last six months. You have also completed an assessment scheme for GP training and have been successful in obtaining an offer of a place on a three year GP rotational training scheme which is due to begin in August 2009.
Throughout its deliberations on sanction the Panel took into account the Indicative Sanctions Guidance. It first considered whether it would be appropriate and proportionate to conclude your case without imposing any sanction.
The Panel took into account the principle of proportionality, weighing the interest of the public against your own interest. The public interest includes not only the protection of patients, but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
The Panel was satisfied that the following mitigating features identified by Ms Bruce are valid, that you:
• had fully cooperated with the police at the time of all three offences;
• had made admissions during the course of the police interview in relation to the assault on Ms A;
• admitted driving having consumed alcohol;
• had not concealed that you were a doctor from the police on any of these occasions;
• agreed to being cautioned in relation to the assault which involved an admission of committing the offence;
• apologised to Ms A immediately after the assault;
• pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol;
• admitted all aspects of the allegation at the outset of this hearing;
• apologised to the Panel and the public at large for your breaches of Good Medical Practice.
The Panel also finds the following:
• your expression of remorse is genuine;
• you have shown clear insight into your behaviour and misconduct;
• there is no evidence to suggest a pattern of inappropriate behaviour towards women that is likely to be repeated;
• your family circumstances are now significantly different to those of January 2007 as you are now married and in a stable relationship, expecting your first child;
• your previous conduct has caused you and your family serious financial hardship and you fear financial ruin;
• the impact of the previous Panel’s determination and the finding of impairment made by this Panel are likely to have serious long term personal and professional consequences for you;
• you no longer consume alcohol;
• following your driving convictions you successfully completed the drink/drive rehabilitation course;
• you have already been punished by the courts in relation to driving offences with disqualification for 24 months and fines totalling £1000;
• there is no evidence that you have harmful, deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems.
The Panel recognises that the decision on sanction is a matter for the Panel exercising its own judgement. It has noted that paragraph 48 of Indicative Sanctions Guidance states:
“Where a doctor’s fitness to practise is impaired the Council expects that Panels will take action against the doctor’s registration in order to protect the public interest (protection of patients, maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour). There may, however be exceptional circumstances in which a Panel might be justified in taking no action against a doctor’s registration. Such cases are, however, likely to be very rare. No action might be appropriate in cases where the doctor had demonstrated considerable insight into his/her behaviour and has already embarked on, and completed, any remedial action the Panel would otherwise require him/her to undertake. The Panel may wish to see evidence to show that the doctor has taken steps to mitigate his/her actions –see paragraphs 25-29 above….”
In considering proportionality, the Panel had to balance the potential impact of any sanction on yourself and your future medical career against the public interest and in particular the maintenance of professional standards. The Panel has already determined that your departures from Good Medical Practice were serious, which you accept.
The Panel gave careful consideration to all the material placed before it, including the findings of the January 2007 FTP Panel in relation to which the Panel has borne in mind paragraphs 89-90 of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance. The Panel took full account of the submissions from Ms Bruce and yourself.
The Panel had to decide whether the public interest in setting and maintaining standards of professional conduct would be supported if no further action were taken. It is aware that the decision on impairment already made is in itself a public declaration of the unacceptability of your conduct.
In striking a balance, the Panel considered with particular care the determination of the previous FTP Panel and the assault on Ms A. The Panel finds that the former misconduct occurred in a clinical context where there was a clear abuse of trust, whereas the latter involved an incident with your partner in a domestic setting.
There are other differences and the Panel has not found any evidence of an underlying pattern of inappropriate behaviour towards women. Further, the Panel noted the limited action taken by the police, namely a caution.
With this in mind, the Panel considers that there are exceptional circumstances in your case which justify taking no action against your registration. Any further action would be disproportionate and would potentially deprive the public of the services of an otherwise competent and committed doctor. In this regard the Panel noted that there is no complaint about your clinical performance.
The Panel finds in this case there are exceptional circumstances (paragraph 48 of Indicative Sanctions Guidance). Not only have you demonstrated considerable insight into your past behaviour but there is the additional weight of the cumulative effect of the mitigation factors highlighted earlier in this determination. For the avoidance of doubt these are that:
• you fully cooperated with the police at the time of all three offences;
• you made admissions during the course of the police interview in relation to the assault on Ms A;
• you admitted driving having consumed alcohol;
• you did not conceal that you were a doctor from the police on any of these occasions;
• you agreed to being cautioned in relation to the assault which involved an admission of committing the offence;
• you apologised to Ms A immediately after the assault;
• you pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol;
• you admitted all aspects of the allegation at the outset of this hearing;
• you apologised to the Panel and the public at large for your breaches of Good Medical Practice.
• your expression of remorse is genuine;
• you have shown clear insight into your behaviour and misconduct;
• there is no evidence to suggest a pattern of inappropriate behaviour towards women that is likely to be repeated;
• your family circumstances are now significantly different to those of January 2007 as you are now married and in a stable relationship, expecting your first child;
• your previous conduct has caused you and your family serious financial hardship and you fear financial ruin;
• the impact of the previous Panel’s determination and the finding of impairment made by this Panel are likely to have serious long term personal and professional consequences for you;
• you no longer consume alcohol;
• following your driving convictions you successfully completed the drink/drive rehabilitation course;
• you have already been punished by the courts in relation to driving offences with disqualification for 24 months and fines totalling £1000;
• there is no evidence that you have any harmful, deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems.
That concludes your case.
Confirmed
11-12 May 2009 Chairman
DR LAMBE
1
FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL
10 MARCH 2010
7th Floor, St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ
Name of Respondent Doctor: Dr Dympna Elizabeth Lambe
Registered Qualifications: MB BCh 1989 Queens University of Belfast
Area of Registered Address: Ayrshire
Reference Number: 3327670
Type of Case: Review case of impairment by reason of a conviction or caution xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Panel Members: Dr P Jefferys, Chairman (Medical)
Dr L Linton (Medical)
Mr J Black (Lay)
Legal Assessor: Mr P Mulvenna
Specialist xxxxxxxxx Adviser Dr J Bearn
Secretary to the Panel: Ms J Smith
Representation:
GMC: Ms Sara Lewis, Counsel, instructed by GMC Legal
Doctor: Not present but is represented by Mr Ralph Shipway of RadcliffesLeBrasseur.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
Prior to the commencement of the proceedings the Panel passed a resolution, under Rule 41 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, that the press and public be excluded from the hearing xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Determination on impaired fitness to practise
Mr Shipway:
At the start of proceedings the Panel, in accordance with Rule 41(3) of the General Medical Council (GMC) (Fitness to Practise) Rule 2004, determined that this hearing should be held in private xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Panel has considered the history of Dr Lambe’s case. It has noted that
Dr Lambe was convicted in March 2005 for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. This conviction resulted initially in voluntary undertakings which were breached and subsequently in the imposition of conditions on Dr Lambe’s registration by the GMC for a period of two years which expired on 19 June 2008.
On 29 September 2008, Dr Lambe was again convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol on 6 September 2008, whilst working as a GP for NHS Ayrshire & Arran. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx She was fined £400, disqualified from driving for 4 years and her driving licence was endorsed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The allegations in relation to Dr Lambe’s second conviction were considered by a Fitness to Practise Panel in a hearing which concluded on 21 August 2009. Her fitness to practise was found to be impaired on the grounds of conviction xxxxxxxxxxx. The Panel determined to impose 19 conditions on her registration, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxfor a period of 12 months xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At the time of her previous hearing, Dr Lambe had been working since March 2009 as a locum staff grade dermatologist at Glasgow Royal Infirmary and Stobhill Hospital where she was regarded as clinically reliable and competent. Her work was being supervised by Dr A, Consultant Dermatologist. She attended Occupational Health on a monthly basis, her work involved outpatient dermatology and did not include any on-call duties.
This Panel has today reviewed Dr Lambe’s case which it notes has been brought back for an early review. It has considered, under Rule 22(f), whether she has failed to comply with any requirement imposed upon her as a condition of registration and whether her fitness to practise is impaired or not. In doing so, it has considered
Ms Lewis’ submissions on behalf of the GMC and your submissions on behalf of
Dr Lambe. It has also had regard to the evidence presented at the previous GMC hearing and the new information before it today.
The Panel has noted the letter from Dr B, dated 12 November 2009, who reported that he had a formal discussion with Dr Lambe because of her regular periods of absence from work over the previous 7-month period. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Dr Lambe was suspended from her post pending the outcome of a full review.
3
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dr Lambe described the meeting with Dr B and Dr A when she was suspended from her post xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ms Lewis submitted that Dr Lambe’s fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of her conviction xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Ms Lewis further submitted that Dr Lambe’s fitness to practise is also impaired by reason of her misconduct due to the persistent breaches of the conditions on her registration.
You submitted, on behalf of Dr Lambe, that her fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of her conviction xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. You told the Panel that Dr Lambe has admitted that she breached the conditions on her registration and fully accepts that her fitness to practise is impaired xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. You submitted that it was a matter for the Panel to decide whether Dr Lambe’s Fitness to Practise remains impaired by reason of her conviction.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Panel first considered whether Dr Lambe’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her conviction. It noted that her conviction in September 2008, which again brought her to the attention of the GMC, was the second time she has been convicted of an alcohol related driving offence in a span of three and a half years. The Panel has determined that Dr Lambe’s fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of her conviction.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Panel went on to consider whether Dr Lambe’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. It has noted all the evidence before it which demonstrates that Dr Lambe has repeatedly breached condition 12. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It has therefore determined that Dr Lambe’s fitness to practise is also impaired by reason of misconduct.
The Panel will now invite further submissions from Ms Lewis, on behalf of the GMC and from you, on the doctor’s behalf, as to the appropriate sanction, if any, to be made in relation to Dr Lambe’s registration. Submissions on sanction should make reference to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance (April 2009, as amended) where appropriate.
4
Determination on sanction
Mr Shipway:
Having determined that Dr Lambe’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her conviction, her misconduct, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the Panel must now determine what action, if any, to take in relation to her registration. In doing so, the Panel has borne in mind the submissions made by Ms Lewis on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC) and those made by you on Dr Lambe’s behalf.
Ms Lewis submitted that the appropriate sanction in this case is one of suspension. She referred the Panel to paragraphs 61 and 62 of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance (April 2009, as amended) which deal with the imposition of conditions.
Ms Lewis reminded the Panel that it has found impairment of Dr Lambe’s fitness to practise on the grounds of conviction, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and misconduct. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ms Lewis submitted that, in view of Dr Lambe’s xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx history of breaching restrictions on her registration, suspension is the only appropriate sanction. Ms Lewis did not make any submission as to the specific length of a period of suspension.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You accepted that the previous Panel had made it clear that any further breach of conditions would be treated very severely and could result in Dr Lambe’s suspension from the Medical Register. You submitted that, if the Panel were minded to suspend Dr Lambe’s registration, then a suitable period of suspension should be no longer than 6 months. You referred the Panel to Dr Lambe’s own recent letter xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
However the decision as to the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose on
Dr Lambe’s registration is a matter for this Panel exercising its own judgement.
The Panel has considered whether it is necessary for the protection of members of the public, in the public interest or in Dr Lambe’s own interests to make a direction in relation to her registration. Throughout its deliberations, the Panel has borne in mind its duty to consider the protection of the public and the public interest. The public interest includes, amongst other things, protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards. It has taken account of the guidance provided within the Indicative Sanctions Guidance (April 2009 Revised 7 August 2009).
The Panel has also applied the principle of proportionality, weighing the public interest against the interests of the doctor. The Panel recognised that the purpose of this hearing is not to punish Dr Lambe, although the imposition of a sanction may have a punitive effect.
The Panel first considered whether to conclude Dr Lambe’s case by taking no further action but determined that xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx it would be insufficient and inappropriate to take no action on her registration.
5
The Panel next considered whether it would be sufficient for the protection of the public, in the public interest and in Dr Lambe’s own interests to place a further period of conditions on her registration. It has borne in mind that any conditions would need to be appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable. It has borne in mind Paragraph 58 of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance (April 2009, revised August 2009) states:
“The purpose of conditions is to enable the doctor to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx remedy any deficiencies in his/her practice whilst in the meantime protecting patients from harm…”
The Panel considers that, although there is an issue of conviction and one of misconduct in this case, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx There has been no suggestion that her clinical practice is flawed or that patients have been put at risk. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It notes that Dr Lambe has complied with all the other previous conditions xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The Panel took the view that it would be possible to formulate appropriate conditions, in spite of Dr Lambe’s previous non-compliance, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx that would protect the public xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThe Panel is very concerned at Dr Lambe’s repeated breaches of her conditions xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The Panel has determined that its response to these breaches xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
In all the above circumstances, the Panel has determined that it is sufficient to protect the public, in the public interest and in Dr Lambe’s own interests to impose a further period of conditional registration.
The Panel then considered the appropriate length of time for which conditions should be imposed on Dr Lambe’s registration. It has concluded that, in all the circumstances, a period of 2 years would be sufficient in the public interest and in her own interests and a mark of the Panel’s concern about the seriousness xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The Panel also considers that a longer period of conditional registration is necessary to ensure Dr Lambe’s safe return to unrestricted practice. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Therefore, the following conditions have been imposed on Dr Lambe’s registration for a period of two years:
The first 11 conditions are public and will be published on the GMC website:
1. She must notify the GMC promptly of any post she accepts for which registration with the GMC is required and provide the GMC with the contact details of her employer.
6
2. At any time that she is providing medical services, which require her to be registered with the GMC, she must agree to the appointment of a workplace reporter nominated by her employer, or contracting body, and approved by the GMC.
3. She must allow the GMC to exchange information with her employer, or any contracting body for which she provides medical services.
4. She must inform the GMC of any formal disciplinary proceedings taken against her, from the date of this determination.
5. She must inform the GMC if she applies for medical employment outside the UK.
6. She must obtain the approval of her medical supervisor before accepting any post for which registration with the GMC is required.
7. She must keep her professional commitments under review and limit her medical practice in accordance with her medical supervisor’s advice.
8. She must cease work immediately if her medical supervisor advises her to do so.
9. She must confine her medical practice to NHS posts in dermatology and/or family planning, where her work will be supervised by a named medical practitioner of consultant grade.
10. She must not undertake any out-of-hours work or on-call duties.
11. She must inform the following parties that her registration is subject to the conditions, listed at (1) to (10), above:
a. Any organisation or person employing or contracting with her to undertake medical work
b. Any locum agency she is registered with or applies to be registered with (at the time of application)
c. Any prospective employer (at the time of application)
d. Her Health Board Director of Public Health
A Panel will review Dr Lambe’s case at a hearing to be held before the end of this period of conditional registration. It will then consider whether it should take any further action in relation to Dr Lambe’s registration. She will be informed of the date of that hearing.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7
The effect of this direction is that, unless Dr Lambe exercises her right of appeal, her registration will become subject to the above conditions 28 days from when written notification of this decision is deemed to have been served upon her. The present conditions will remain in place until this decision takes effect. A note explaining her right of appeal will be sent to her.
That concludes this hearing.
Confirmed
10 March 2010 Dr Peter Jefferys, Chairman
