MPT Sanctions, Sexual Misconduct and Racist Conduct: Key Lessons from GMC v Gilbert EWCA Civ 53

Barry Baines explores the recent Court of Appeal decision in General Medical Council v Gilbert & Anor EWCA Civ 53, examining how the judgment reaffirms the limits of the GMC’s right of appeal, the deference owed to tribunal sanction decisions, and the proper approach to serious findings involving sexual misconduct and racist conduct.

There are important takeaways, particularly for those defending healthcare professionals, from the very recent Court of Appeal decision which involved findings by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT)against a surgeon involving sexual misconduct and racist comments: General Medical Council v Gilbert & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 53

The MPT suspended the surgeon for 8 months. The GMC and PSA appealed the leniency of the decision to the Administrative Court where the Calver J declined to erase the surgeon’s name from the register but substituted a suspension of 12 months with a review.

The GMC sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal arguing that the judge was (i) wrong not to direct erasure and (ii) that the judge failed to follow the logic of his own reasoning regarding the Guidelines.

Lord Justice Zacaroli refused permission to appeal on the first ground, but after oral argument before Andrews and Elisabeth Laing LJJ, their Ladyships granted permission to proceed on the second ground.

At this stage the PSA, who had not originally appealed, were joined as second respondent and applied to cross appeal wishing to support the GMC appeal and go further.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal holding:

1. Where an applicant for permission to appeal on a particular ground was refused permission to appeal, that appeal was final and could not be revisited by the Court of Appeal Civil Division.
2. Two cases cited in support of the appeal where the court observed that in matters such as dishonesty or sexual misconduct the court was well placed to assess what was needed to protect the public (Sastry v GMC; Okpara v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 623; [2021] 1 WLR 5029) were both appeals by practitioners under s40 of the 1983 Act where the High Court’s jurisdiction was by way of rehearing (CPD PD52D, para 19.1(1)(c). This contrasted with appeals by the GMC under section 40A where the court was conducting a review rather than a rehearing.
3. As was said by Nicola Davies LJ in Sastry, the GMC was given only a limited right of appeal on the ground of “sufficiency”, and endorsed the approach in Bawa-Garba v GMC [2018] EWCA Civ 1879 as appropriate to the review jurisdiction in s40A appeals.
4. Calver J rightly said, in determining sanction in such cases the tribunal was making an evaluative judgment to which the court should give a proper measure of respect, in particular when exercising the review jurisdiction under s40A.
5. There was no failure by the judge properly to apply the Sanctions Guidance, nor any error of principle, nor that the logic of his decision to reverse the Tribunal’s decision in certain fairly limited respects meant that erasure was inevitable.
6. Erasure was not a default position in such cases from which any departure had to be justified, and a mechanistic tick box or score sheet approach to the Guidance was to be deprecated. What matter more than labels was the substance of what the registrant actually did.

For advice on GMC fitness to practise and MPT sanctions, our GMC defence solicitors can help.