High Court: (a) dismisses appeal from decision of Fitness to Practice Committee of the General Medical Council that actions of a psychiatrist amounted to misconduct in that he accepted instructions in an FTP hearing concerning a paramedic when he was not an appropriate expert in the area and that he had made findings that the paramedic was impaired in her ability to practice professionally without adequate reasons; but (b) allows appeal in respect of the suspension of the psychiatrist for three months and substitutes an order that the psychiatrist not accept instructions to act as an expert witness in FTP hearings for three months.

Pool v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 3791 (Admin) (13 November 2014) 

Appeal agianst decision of FTP committee of GMC – found that actions of doctor amounted to misconduct – suspension as doctor for three months – appeared as expert witness in FTP panel concerning a paramedic – psychiatric report – objection as to whether he could act in that respect – not an expert in field of general adult psychiatry – gave evidence on matters outside professional competence – failed to explain reasons for his opinion that paramedic’s fitness to practice was impairedd – finding that planning of suicide impaired paramedic’s ability to practice professionally – breach of GMC’s guidance “Acting as an expert witness” – whether decision of FTP panel was wrong – adquacy of reasons – finding that appellant was not an expert – adequacy of reasons for psychiatrist’s findings  – sanction imposed – whether disproportionate.

“The Appellant is a psychiatrist. At the material time, he was employed as a consultant psychiatrist in the private sector working in a secure hospital. In August 2011, he accepted instructions from a firm of solicitors, Kingsley Napley, as an expert witnesses in proceedings before the Health Professions Council (“the HPC”). That case involved consideration of the fitness to practise of a paramedic, A, who had been diagnosed as having a personality disorder and post traumatic stress disorder, in part as the result of abuse suffered during childhood. The Appellant prepared a report on A and the question of her fitness to practice. A objected to the evidence being received on the grounds that the Appellant was not an expert. That objection was eventually dealt with at a hearing in March 2012. The HPC concluded that the Appellant did not have sufficient expertise in the field of personality disorders to qualify him as an expert and decided not to admit the Appellant’s evidence. A subsequently referred the Appellant to the GMC.”

“The question was not whether the Appellant had skills or experience in dealing with particular conditions which would enable him to carry out a risk assessment of a person with those conditions. The question was whether he could, legitimately, describe himself as an “expert” in the field of assessment of the fitness to practise of an individual carrying out a particular role in the workplace. The Appellant was, simply, not an expert in that area.”

“The Appellant did not in his report provide adequate reasoning for his professional opinion that A’s fitness to practise her occupation was wholly impaired nor do his comments at paragraph 18.38 to 18.41 explain why that was likely to be for an indefinite period.”

“For each of those separate reasons, the determination of the Panel to direct that the Appellant’s name be suspended from the register for three months is flawed. Exercising the powers conferred by section 40(7) of the Act, I direct that that direction be replaced by a direction that the Appellant’s registration be subject to a condition that the Appellant should not for three months accept instructions to act as an expert witness in fitness to practise proceedings.”