General Medical Council v Gilbert

The case attracted widespread publicity, including a feature article in the Times Magazine on 28 September 2024 (Rachel Sylvester, “The Male Surgeon who preyed on female colleagues—while they were operating in theatre”). The underlying conduct took place over a period of years and was directed at a number of junior colleagues, several of whom were being trained by Mr Gilbert at the time. Other junior doctors had previously complained about sexual misconduct by Mr Gilbert. Despite these aggravating features, the MPT decided to impose a suspension of eight months without a review being required before Mr Gilbert could re-enter unrestricted practice.

The GMC exercised its right of appeal under the Medical Act and persuaded Calver J to quash the MPT’s determination and to substitute a 12-month suspension (the statutory maximum) with a review. The GMC sought permission to appeal against this judgment on two grounds: that the only appropriate sanction was erasure and that the learned Judge had failed correctly to apply the Sanctions Guidance. Permission was refused on the first ground and the Court of Appeal ultimately decided that Calver J had sufficiently addressed the aggravating features of the misconduct identified in the Guidance.

Ivan Hare KC represented the GMC.

The judgments are available here (High Court) and here (Court of Appeal).