Consideration of Proportionality of Discipline

       The High Court of Justice, in a July 25, 2024 decision, considered an appeal by a general practitioner, Dr. Higgins, who was erased from the register based upon findings of sexual misconduct by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (Tribunal).   

The Appellant was qualified as a physician in 1999.  In 2004, he started at the General Practice where he later become a partner in 2008.  In 2021, the Senior Partner of the practice contacted the General Medical Council, reporting allegations made by two complainants regarding Appellant’s conduct.  Subsequently, the Appellant left the practice in December 2021.

Appellant was alleged to have conducted himself inappropriately with four junior female members of staff at the General Practice where he was a partner.  Allegations included making comments of a sexual nature in person, by telephone and via messaging; hugging one of the female staff more than once without permission; and attempting to kiss one of the female staff against her will.  The Appellant denied all allegations and brought this appeal.  He contended that the Tribunal did not have regard for all the relevant evidence and that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for the findings of fact.  He further argued that the Tribunal committed error in weighing of the evidence and failure to accurately assess the insight of the Appellant, resulting in error and the sanction imposed.

Upon review of the record, this Court noted the Tribunal found aggravating factors that included that “the misconduct was inherently serious and would be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners;” the misconduct was directed to multiple young women working in a junior capacity at the practice;  an imbalance of power existed; and the misconduct occurred over a period of time.  The Tribunal also considered mitigating factors, including Appellant’s previous good character and unblemished career, the time since the incidents occurred, admissions that were made by Appellant, and his apology, remorse for his actions and evidence about his personal circumstances.  However, this was not a singular event, but rather a sustained misconduct over time.

This Court is deferential to the conclusions of the Tribunal with respect to the evidence, given the Tribunal heard and directly reviewed the evidence.  There is no indication that the Tribunal failed to consider the testimony and evidence presented.  The findings of the Tribunal with respect to the Appellant’s behavior were reasonable and included consideration of Appellant’s insight.  The sanctions of the erasure were not excessive or disproportionate.

Appeal dismissed.