News

Delay in GMC hearing breached doctor's human rights

Clare Dyer, legal correspondent, BMJ

A surgeon who has been suspended on full pay for nearly four years won an unprecedented legal victory last week when the General Medical Council agreed to drop its case against him on the grounds that delay had breached his right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act.

John Rogers, an honorary consultant at the Royal London Hospital and senior lecturer at Queen Mary and Westfield College of the University of London, was suspended by the college in January 1998 over allegations concerning a procedure for gastric reflux which was part of a research study.

He was alleged to have failed to get ethics committee approval, to have carried out and invoiced for procedures that were clinically unnecessary, and to have published misleading information about success and failure rates.

The college appointed an independent disciplinary committee headed by the retired appeal court judge Sir Brian Neill to look into the allegations. The committee found no evidence of dishonesty and recommended a reprimand rather than dismissal.

The committee recommended that some of the accusations should be referred to the GMC for investigation, but the college decided to refer all the allegations. In April 1999 the GMC wrote to Mr Rogers to tell him that his case was to be referred to the preliminary proceedings committee.

The full hearing of his case was set for February 2002, but Mr Rogers' counsel, Robert Seabrook QC, went to the High Court to argue that the delay breached his client's right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act. The High Court judge was "surprised" at the delay, but said the arguments should be put to the GMC itself rather than the court.

In a two day hearing, Mr Seabrook told the GMC's professional conduct committee that its concern for the public interest was not a licence to "ride roughshod" over a practitioner's career and livelihood. While the case was pending, Mr Rogers' admitting privileges at private hospitals had progressively been withdrawn.

The committee decided that by setting a date of February 2002 to hear the case the GMC had breached Mr Rogers' right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Balancing the GMC's duty to protect patients, the interests of the public, and the interests of the doctor, it would be "disproportionate" to continue with the proceedings.

Neither Mr Rogers nor the college would comment on the likelihood of reinstatement in his job.