Legal Jukebox Friday: The High Court’s Take on the “Rejected Defence” Issue 🎵⚖️
Welcome to Legal Jukebox Friday!
Your go-to weekly insight into key legal cases that shape regulatory law. Each week, we explore a randomly selected case and analyse its impact on solicitors, adjudicators, and healthcare professionals.
Some cases are classics, yet their lessons remain as relevant as ever.
So, grab a drink, sit back, and join us for Legal Jukebox Friday—where every case has its own rhythm!
This week, we examine the denial of allegations and its impact on impairment and sanctions. The key question:
📌 Can defending oneself against allegations of dishonesty unfairly affect impairment and sanction decisions?
The Case: Sawati v General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 283 (Admin)
In this case, the High Court clarified how tribunals should handle situations where a professional’s defence is rejected.
This issue revolves around two key principles:
✅ The right to a fair trial – Professionals must be able to defend themselves without facing unfair consequences.
✅ Public trust in regulation – Dishonest or misleading conduct must be addressed appropriately.
After reviewing case law, the Court provided clearer guidance for tribunals moving forward.
Case Summary: Dr Sawati and the GMC
The General Medical Council (GMC) brought misconduct allegations against Dr Sawati, citing six incidents between 2014 and 2018, including:
- Altering a patient’s medical records after the fact.
- Falsely claiming a shift swap agreement with a colleague.
- Incorrectly stating she was enrolled on a course.
Dr Sawati defended herself, arguing that these were communication and record-keeping errors rather than acts of dishonesty.
Tribunal Findings & Appeal
In August 2021, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) found the dishonesty allegations proven, ruling that her fitness to practise was impaired. The tribunal ordered her removal from the medical register.
🔹 Three separate dishonesty findings were upheld.
🔹 She showed only partial insight into her misconduct.
🔹 The Tribunal concluded she had not been truthful during the hearing.
Appeal Outcome
Dr Sawati appealed, claiming:
🚫 The dishonesty findings were flawed.
🚫 The sanctioning process was unfair.
While the High Court upheld the dishonesty ruling, it found procedural fairness lacking in the sanctioning process. Consequently, the case was sent back for reconsideration.
The High Court’s View on the “Rejected Defence” Issue
A key legal question emerged:
📌 Can a professional’s defence unfairly influence impairment and sanction decisions if the tribunal does not accept it?
The Court highlighted two main ways a rejected defence could impact a tribunal’s decision:
1️⃣ Lack of Insight
- Insight plays a crucial role in assessing remediation and future risk.
- A professional who lacks insight may be viewed as more likely to repeat their misconduct.
2️⃣ Truthfulness During the Hearing
- If a tribunal believes a professional provided dishonest evidence, it may question their overall integrity.
- However, the Court warned against punishing individuals solely for defending themselves.
What Previous Cases Say About the “Rejected Defence”
Case law provides important guidance on this issue:
📖 Key Cases to Know
- Defending oneself does not equate to a lack of insight (Motola v GMC [2017], Sayer v General Osteopathic Council [2021])
- Tribunals must distinguish between a simple denial and misleading evidence (Towuaghantse v GMC [2021])
- Unless false evidence is proven, defending oneself should not lead to harsher sanctions (Ahmedsowida v GMC [2021])
Key Takeaways for professionals
The Sawati case confirms that tribunals can consider a rejected defence when assessing impairment and sanctions—but only when justified.
What Solicitors & Regulators Should Consider
🔹 Demonstrating insight is crucial when defending a client’s case.
🔹 A defence strategy must not be misinterpreted as dishonesty. No professional should face harsher sanctions simply for defending themselves.
🔹 Procedural fairness must always be upheld in tribunal decisions.
The ruling safeguards professionals’ right to contest allegations—unless they are found to have deliberately misled the tribunal.
How Regulation Resolution Solicitors Can Help
At Regulation Resolution Solicitors, we specialise in professional discipline and regulatory law, supporting healthcare professionals across multiple regulatory bodies.
🔹 Facing a regulatory investigation? Our experienced legal team advises on GMC, GDC, NMC, and other professional tribunal cases.
Our Services Include:
✔️ Expert legal representation at hearings.
✔️ Case preparation & appeals.
✔️ Guidance on insight, remediation & defence strategy.
📩 Need legal advice? Contact us today for a confidential consultation.
Stay Updated with Regulation Resolution Solicitors
🔹 Subscribe for weekly legal insights.
🔹 Follow us for the latest regulatory law updates.
Our Expertise:
• Professional Discipline & Regulatory Law
• Healthcare & Medical Law
• Fitness to Practise Investigations