Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

the Panels do not make findings of fact or resolve disputes of fact. 56 Normally a
Panel will hear evidence from the registrant but is less likely to hear evidence
from a witness. 57
Criteria for Interim Orders
9.79 The Panel imposing or reviewing an Interim Order is not charged with
determining whether the allegations are in fact true. 58 In most cases the test for
an Order is whether it is necessary in order to protect the public. But some of the
regulators can also impose or maintain an Interim Order if it is otherwise in the
public interest or in the interests of the registrant or the person concerned. The
public interest ground was introduced following the Shipman Inquiry (see Part 1)
and has been characterised as aimed at giving Panels “a discretion as broad as
the courts would permit”. Indeed, the enlarged power was accompanied by an
increase in usage by the General Medical Council with only four Interim Orders
being made between 1980 and 1996, compared to 455 in 2009 alone. 59 This is
despite guidance issued by the Council that Interim Orders should only be used
in extreme cases and rarely on the grounds of public interest alone. 60 The validity
of this guidance has been confirmed by the courts. 61
Right of Appeal
9.80 The right of appeal against an Interim Order is to the High Court in England and
Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court in Northern
Ireland. The governing legislation in most cases gives the court powers to review
Interim Orders on issues of both fact and law, including powers to
revoke/terminate the order; vary, revoke or remove any condition; or substitute a
different time period. 62
Provisional view
9.81 The power to suspend or place conditions on a registrant pending the
investigation of an allegation is an important precautionary tool in the protection
of patients. It also gives registrants the opportunity to reflect on their conduct and
time to prove that they have remedied their professional shortcomings. Interim
Orders also help to “counter the allegation that the final sanction is devalued
because of the passage of time between the incidents triggering the complaint
56 General Medical Council, Imposing Interim Orders: Guidance for the Interim Orders Panel
and the Fitness to Practise Panel (2009) para 17.
57 As above.
58 R (Ali) v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 1630 (Admin).
59 P Case, “Putting Public Confidence First: Doctors, Precautionary Suspension, and the
General Medical Council (2011) 19 Medical Law Review 3, 344 to 345.
60 General Medical Council, Interim Orders Committee: Referral Guidance (2009). See also R
(Shiekh) v General Dental Council [2007] EWHC 2972 (Admin) and R (Sosanya) v General
Medical Council EWHC 2814 (Admin).
61 Yeoung v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1923 (Admin) at [60] to [61].
62 See, for example, Medical Act 1983, s 41A(10).
177