A doctor faced a sanction hearing before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal following determinations that her fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and deficient professional performance. The findings concerned serious clinical failings in the care of a patient, including failure to offer caesarean section despite clear clinical indication, failure to conduct adequate examination, and failure to provide the patient with information about available treatment options. Most seriously, the Tribunal found that the doctor had been dishonest in her records and accounts of her clinical decision-making, compounding the distress of a bereaved parent whose baby died following the events in question.
The doctor instructed Regulation Resolution Solicitors to act on her behalf at the sanction stage. The firm’s strategy was to present a compelling mitigation case focused on demonstrating developing insight, genuine remediation efforts, and the disproportionality of erasure given the circumstances, whilst acknowledging the seriousness of the findings.
Regulation Resolution gathered detailed evidence of the doctor’s reflective work undertaken since the initial investigations, compiled testimonials from colleagues attesting to her character and professionalism, documented her engagement with probity and ethics training, and prepared comprehensive written submissions addressing the legal principles governing sanctions. The firm drafted robust arguments distinguishing between the seriousness of the clinical and probity failings and the appropriate sanction, emphasising that suspension—rather than erasure—would provide adequate time for meaningful remediation and further development of insight whilst maintaining public protection.
At the hearing in December 2025, the GMC’s Counsel argued for erasure, emphasising the persistence of the dishonesty over many years, the limited insight demonstrated, and the serious harm caused to the patient. Regulation Resolution’s Counsel presented evidence of the doctor’s growing acknowledgment of her failings, the steps taken to address her practice, and the testimonials supporting her character and professionalism. The defence submissions highlighted that whilst dishonesty is a serious matter, the totality of the evidence demonstrated that suspension—with a directed review hearing—would achieve the regulatory objectives without the finality of erasure.
The Tribunal determined that suspension for 12 months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction. The panel found that whilst the dishonesty was serious, the doctor had begun acknowledging her failings and demonstrated some developing insight. A review hearing was directed before the end of the suspension period, at which the doctor would be required to demonstrate further remediation and continued insight.
The doctor retained her registration and was permitted to return to unrestricted practice following the conclusion of the suspension period, subject to satisfactory evidence of continued remediation at the review hearing.
What this means if you’re facing similar allegations
Even serious findings including dishonesty do not automatically lead to erasure. A compelling mitigation case built on developing insight, genuine remediation and proportionality can persuade a tribunal that a lesser sanction meets the public interest. If you are at the sanction stage, how mitigation is evidenced and argued can preserve your registration.
Facing a GMC case? Learn more about our General Medical Council (GMC) defence services, or contact us for a free case evaluation.