This decision follows concerns from DAUK, the British Medical Association (BMA) and others that the original consultation presented the recommendations of the Lord Mann Review in a misleading and legally flawed way.

DAUK acted before the original consultation deadline.

On 9 June, solicitors acting for DAUK, Leigh Day, wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) seeking a one-month extension to the consultation.

Lord Mann Review

The request highlighted that Lord Mann’s Review had been published on 4 June, leaving doctors and representative organisations less than three weeks to consider its recommendations before the consultation was due to close on 23 June.

DHSC initially refused DAUK’s request for a formal extension, although it agreed that DAUK could submit further material concerning the Mann Review by 30 June.

The Government later revised its position, extending the consultation by four weeks to 21 July.

However, DAUK made clear that an extension alone could not correct the underlying problem with the consultation.

Withdrawn and reissued

On 29 June, Leigh Day wrote again on our behalf, arguing that the consultation remained misleading and calling for the sections dealing with the GMC’s appeal powers to be withdrawn and reissued.

DAUK has worked closely with other representatives of the medical profession during this process and supported the legal challenge brought by the BMA.

DAUK’s draft consultation response and legal position were informed by detailed work from our members, and we will refine this further for the new consultation.

The Government has now confirmed that it will consult again on the proposals, a decision DAUK believes is welcome and necessary. It also demonstrates the impact that coordinated legal, professional and public pressure can have.

DAUK continues to oppose the GMC retaining a separate right to appeal MPTS decisions.

Independent oversight

The Professional Standards Authority already provides independent oversight and has its own power to challenge decisions.

Giving the GMC an overlapping appeal power risks undermining the independence of the tribunal system and perpetuating the mistrust identified following the case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba.

Dr Matt Kneale, DAUK co-chair, said: “The government initially rejected DAUK’s request for a proper extension, before extending the consultation for everyone and now accepting that it must consult again

“That sequence shows why it was essential for doctors’ organisations to challenge this process.

“DAUK was clear that additional time alone would not cure a consultation that presented the arguments unfairly.

Collaborative work

“Through our legal team, our consultation response, and our work alongside the BMA, we helped maintain the pressure for the affected proposals to be withdrawn and reconsidered.

“This is an important result for doctors, patients and fair regulation.

“We will continue to argue that independent oversight should rest with the Professional Standards Authority, rather than allowing the GMC to act as investigator, prosecutor and appellant.”

We are a non-profit campaigning and lobbying organisation led by frontline doctors, for frontline doctors. We are volunteers and our collective aim is to give frontline workers a voice to be heard.

Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder.

DAUK took legal advice on the Department of Health and Social Care’s consultation on the draft General Medical Council Order 2026.

The association is now weighing its position alongside the British Medical Association (BMA), which has begun legal proceedings against the government over the same issue.

The draft Order proposes preserving and widening the GMC’s right of appeal against MPTS decisions, which is a significant reversal of the policy consensus reached after the Bawa-Garba case.

Williams Review

Following the independent Williams Review in 2018, the government accepted that the GMC’s right of appeal against MPTS decisions should be removed, in order to strengthen the independence of medical adjudication and rebuild doctors’ trust in the regulator. The draft Order abandons that commitment.

DAUK also shares the BMA’s concern that the consultation misrepresents the findings of Lord Mann’s review and fails to give consultees enough information to respond meaningfully – raising questions about whether the consultation process is lawful.

DAUK co-chair Dr Matt Kneale said: “Eight years ago, after the Williams Review, the government accepted that the GMC should lose its power to appeal tribunal decisions – the very power used against Dr Bawa-Garba, which did such lasting damage to doctors’ trust in the GMC.

Broken promise

“For ministers now to quietly retain and even extend that power, through a consultation that doctors say misrepresents the evidence and gives them too little to respond to, breaks that promise.

“We have taken legal advice and, alongside the BMA, we are actively considering our next steps.”

Meanwhile, DAUK has joined 12 other medical organisations urging the government to reconsider its plan to retain the GMC’s right to appeal the decisions of its own tribunal service.

Coalition of medical organisations

In a joint letter to Minister of State for Health, Karin Smyth MP, the coalition argues the GMC’s right of appeal risks seriously undermining the profession’s and the public’s trust in the independence of the tribunal process, and the regulator itself.

Read more about the coalition’s calls.

We are a non-profit campaigning and lobbying organisation led by frontline doctors, for frontline doctors. We are volunteers and our collective aim is to give frontline workers a voice to be heard.

Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder.

Under the Government’s current proposals, the GMC would retain its ability to appeal decisions made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) and gain additional powers to appeal interim decisions.

The move to keep the GMC’s right of appeal goes against reviews by Sir Norman Williams and Dr Leslie Hamilton – which both recommended its removal in favour of a single, independent route held by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA).

These recommendations were supported by the then government and the GMC.

Public trust

In a joint letter to Minister of State for Health, Karin Smyth MP, coordinated by the Medical Protection Society (MPS), the coalition argues the GMC’s right of appeal risks seriously undermining the profession’s and the public’s trust in the independence of the tribunal process, and the regulator itself.

The letter also states that ‘providing both the GMC and the PSA with parallel rights of appeal creates unnecessary duplication, inconsistency, and complexity to the regulatory system’.

It quotes evidence from a Freedom of Information request by MPS which shows that 88 per cent of PSA appeals have been successful since 2016, compared with 70% for the GMC over the same period, rejecting the argument that the GMC’s right should stand due to its high record of successful appeals.

Independent oversight

“This demonstrates that an additional, overlapping GMC right of appeal is unnecessary given the existence of an established and effective independent oversight mechanism through the PSA,” the letter says.

The letter was signed by: Medical Protection Society, British Medical Association, Doctors Association UK, Association of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, Royal Medical Benevolent Fund, British International Doctors Association, Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, Medical Women’s Federation, The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland and the Medical Defence Union.

Read the letter in full.

We are a non-profit campaigning and lobbying organisation led by frontline doctors, for frontline doctors. We are volunteers and our collective aim is to give frontline workers a voice to be heard.

Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder.

Suspension

The High Court has now extended Mr Gilbert’s suspension to 12 months following a successful appeal brought by the (PSA) and the General Medical Council (GMC). The case drew national media attention due to the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the widespread concern expressed by professionals, and the questions it raised about the fairness and structure of medical regulation in the UK. Mr Gilbert was found guilty of multiple counts of serious professional misconduct over a period of more than ten years, including repeated incidents of non-consensual physical contact, sexually motivated remarks and behaviour, harassment, and the use of racially offensive language. These actions were directed at multiple junior colleagues, took place in professional settings, and constituted a significant abuse of power and position.

High Court

The High Court upheld the original findings of fact made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, concluding that the conduct had seriously undermined public confidence in the profession and failed to uphold professional standards. Dr Kneale said: “While we are disappointed the sanction remains a suspension rather than erasure from the medical register, we accept the court’s reasoning. “We maintain that such sustained and inappropriate behaviour has no place in the NHS. “In our view, the public is unlikely to be reassured by an additional four-month suspension, and concerns remain about the doctor’s return to unrestricted practice after just one year.”

Reform

DAUK is now urging ‘long-overdue’ reform of the fitness to practise proceedings in line with the Williams Review. Dr Kneale said: “We also believe the GMC should not have appealed the tribunal’s original verdict. “As the body responsible for investigating the case and referring it to the tribunal, it cannot simultaneously function as an impartial appellate challenger. “This dual role undermines the credibility of the process and reinforces longstanding concerns about conflicts of interest within the UK’s medical regulatory framework. “The PSA’s intervention in this case was timely and principled, and demonstrated that fair and independent oversight is not only possible but essential.

Williams Review

“As recommended in the Williams Review, DAUK urges the Government to accelerate long-overdue reforms to ensure that fitness to practise proceedings are conducted independently of the GMC. “DAUK remains committed to standing up for those affected by misconduct in the workplace and campaigning for a regulatory system that prioritises fairness, transparency, and the protection of patients and professionals alike.” Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder or by becoming a member.

In a letter to the Times, Dr Taylor, Doctors’ Association UK (DAUK) GP spokesperson, said the law was a complex set of rules that politicians have fallen foul of but continued to work.

His letter was in response to a column by Daniel Finkelstein, ‘Contempt for the law shows contempt for us all’.

Dr Taylor said: “The problem with this argument is that the law is a wide and complex set of rules, which at times are not as clear cut as he makes out.

“Indeed, many of our MPs have broken laws, which have not resulted in their suspension from parliament.

“The public have every right to be protected from law-breakers when they see a doctor, but it is unlikely that they would be fazed by seeing one that has broken a law that does not affect their clinical judgement or trustworthiness.”

Read Dr Taylor’s letter in full.

Dr Sarah Benn

Dr Benn, a GP of 32 years, was suspended for five months following her Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing after being arrested and jailed for her involvement in peaceful demonstrations at an oil terminal. Dr Benn said she had a moral duty to take action to protect health and life.

Read more details of her case.

The Doctors’ Association UK (DAUK) has set up a survey asking for the views of members, health professionals, and the public on Dr Benn’s case.

Please complete our short survey and tell us your views.

The survey has been reported on by Pulse and Doctors.net.

Our statement on the suspension of Dr Benn following her MPTS hearing was used by GPOnline.com.

Sign up to be a DAUK member and support our work.

We at DAUK understand that Dr Benn broke the law, an injunction that a US oil company had in place to prevent climate activists protesting outside its refinery, when she stood peacefully holding a small placard.

We also understand that patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and health; doctors must make sure their conduct justifies their patients’ trust in them and the public’s trust in the profession.

We also understand that the MPTS must do what is necessary to protect the public and that sanctions must be imposed, even where this may lead to difficulties for a doctor. The GMC states that this is necessary to fulfil its statutory overarching objective to protect the public.

Not all doctors subject to a custodial sentence having broken the law have been sanctioned by the MPTS. The MPTS can use its discretion.

In handing down a five-month suspension from the medical register for Dr Benn, the General Medical Council (GMC) and the MPTS is telling doctors and the public that it will, however, sanction those doctors who want to protest, to try to raise serious concerns about the risk to public health from the greatest threat to global health the world has seen. A doctor will be sanctioned even when the world is at stake.

We passionately believe that doctors should always have a voice to speak out when patient safety is at risk and never be silenced when raising evidence-based concerns. Climate change, its effect on the planet, weather patterns, future health and even the survival of the human race is evidence based.

Did Dr Benn put patients at risk with her placard? Did Dr Benn bring the medical profession into disrepute? Did she put the trust of the public in their doctors at risk? We at DAUK believe that Dr Benn is actively trying to protect the public and is prepared to go to prison to do so.

We would argue that the profession has not been undermined by her actions, and the public is not concerned about one doctor trying to protect them and the planet but more by the inadequate response of the Government and organisations, including the GMC, to our overwhelming and unprecedented climate crisis.

We hope Dr Benn’s patients can see another doctor whilst she is unable to do so, having been a trusted and admired GP for 32 years.

We continue to stand alongside Dr Benn and would suggest the vast majority of the medical profession and the public do also.

We believe this case has been incredibly damaging to free speech and patient safety.

We urge the MPTS to reconsider and encourage Dr Benn to appeal.

This is a story of a clinician being punished for raising serious concerns about dangerous inaction on the greatest threat to global health we have ever, or will ever experience.

The right to peaceful protest is a basic human right. It cannot and must not be taken away, especially not when the reason for protest has an overwhelming evidence base and threatens the lives of everyone and everything we love.

To decide what is criminal and what is legal is a decision for courts and governments.

However, as clinicians we must stand shoulder to shoulder when the evidence is as clear as with the climate crisis.

The GMC’s Good Medical Practice states that doctors ‘take prompt action’ if they think patient safety ‘is or may be seriously compromised’ which is exactly what these climate protestors claim they are doing.

The GMC says it acts to protect the public against erring doctors and must sanction doctors to maintain public trust in the profession.

Swathes of the public, if not the majority, are deeply concerned about the future of our planet and the inaction of our leaders to avert catastrophe – they are not concerned about a doctor trying to save our planet.

DAUK will proudly stand alongside Dr Benn as this tribunal progresses.

Our methods may differ but the message is clear: Governments, including the UK Government, and organisations, including the GMC, are failing to act quickly and effectively enough to protect global patient safety.

Their response, despite countless warnings from scientists across the globe, is not enough, and we are now in a position of annual life-threatening extreme weather events.

Dr Sarah Benn, we believe, is on the right side of history, and we ask the GMC and the MPTS, can you say the same?

Given the evidence on climate change and its health impacts, we strongly believe that peaceful protest should not be viewed as condemnable professional misconduct – but as commendable public health advocacy.

Today, there is widespread relief amongst the medical profession. However, the verdict is no cause for celebration. At the heart of this case is a child, Jack Adcock, who tragically lost his life to sepsis. Our hearts go out to the Adcock family as they continue to grieve for Jack.

When a child dies it is our duty as doctors to do all we can to prevent the same tragedy from occurring again. We strongly feel that scapegoating an individual doctor or clinician for human errors made whilst whilst working under enormous pressure, does not serve this purpose. Instead, the criminalisation of medical error creates a culture of fear and blame, where clinicians feel afraid to speak up, afraid to reflect, and afraid to learn when things go wrong.1

Therefore, we welcome the verdict of the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) today, who, after considering all the system failures and the context in which Dr Bawa-Garba made errors, has found her safe to return to medical practice, albeit with conditions on her license. We are especially pleased that the MPTS had accepted Dr Bawa-Garba has “fully remediated”. With widespread support from the medical profession and the Royal Colleges we hope that she will be fully supported in a return to work.

Dr Jenny Vaughan, Law and Policy Officer DAUK and Founder of Manslaughter and Healthcare said:

“I’m a patient, doctor and a mother and I know that Jack Adcock should have received better care. However, Dr Bawa-Garba was working in appalling conditions that day in an NHS hospital and all the evidence of what the hospital actually needed to put right was not heard by the jury. There is a culture of blame in the NHS at the moment which, if left unchecked, will mean patient safety is not what it should be as staff will be too scared to admit their mistakes. The next generation of those who want to care will simply vote with their feet. It’s right that Dr Bawa-Garba is going to be restored to the medical register as the hospital too was at fault and should have provided better care. We are calling for a just culture so that the system here is made safer as locking up individuals achieves nothing.”

Dr Samantha Batt-Rawden, Chair of The Doctors’ Association UK said:

“Today’s verdict, whilst welcome, is no cause of celebration. There are no winners in this desperately sad case. However, restoring Dr Bawa-Garba to the medical register is the right outcome and will go some way in addressing the current climate of fear and blame in the NHS which is so toxic to patient safety. I have no doubt that Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba will now be the safest doctor in the hospital, and as a doctor and a mother I would have no hesitation in allowing her to treat my child. ”

Contact

Contact@dauk.org

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. In November 2018 DAUK launched our campaign Learn Not Blame in Parliament, for a just culture in the NHS. DAUK continues to campaign for the decriminalisation of medical error and feels strongly that no clinician should face criminal charges for honest errors. https://www.dauk.org/learnnotblamedauk

In a letter to health and social care secretary Matt Hancock, the Doctors Association UK (DAUK) and others including campaign group GP Survival voiced ‘collective concern’ over the GMC’s decision to continue to appeal decisions by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in court following the Bawa-Garba case.

The government set out plans to strip the the GMC of its power to appeal decisions made by the MPTS after a review triggered by the damaging, high-profile case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba – struck off after a GMC appeal against a tribunal ruling, but later reinstated.

The government review warned GMC appeals had created ‘fear and mistrust’ among doctors and were ‘deterring reflection and learning from errors to the detriment of patient safety’.

Tribunal appeal

However, the government has yet to pass legislation to remove the GMC’s power of appeal, and GPonline revealed last month that the regulator is currently appealing four tribunal decisions.

In each of these cases, the GMC is asking the Court of Appeal to replace an MPTS decision with a more severe sanction. In three cases it is recommending – as it did in the Bawa-Garba case – that suspension be substituted for erasure from the medical register.

The letter, signed by 14 representatives from 11 different organisations, urged Mr Hancock to ‘call upon the GMC to cease appealing MPTS verdicts’ and confirm when the regulator’s right to appeal will be repealed, as recommended by the Williams review earlier this year.

The letter reads: ‘We, the undersigned, all agree that the GMC cannot be trusted to take a balanced and considered approach in the sanction of doctors who have made honest mistakes in the context of system failures.

read the full coverge

These concerns relate to cases being brought to the Court of Appeal by the GMC in an attempt to overrule the findings of doctors’ tribunal proceedings, in order to have doctors erased from the medical register. DAUK and its affiliates are calling for the Health Secretary to undertake an urgent review of the current and ongoing actions of the GMC, and to put a stop to such appeals being brought, pending a review of relevant legislation.

This call for action has come following the landmark case involving Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba. The GMC had sought to overturn a decision made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), in order to erase Dr Bawa-Garba from the medical register. To the relief of the medical profession, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the GMC’s case, and ruled that Dr Bawa-Garba ought to be reinstated to the medical register, thus allowing her to continue to work as a doctor.

The Bawa-Garba case resulted in the launch of the Williams Review, with recommendations being made in June of 2018. Professor Norman Williams stated that the GMC ought to have its right to appeal MPTS verdicts removed, and noted that granting the GMC this right of appeal in 2015 had come with significant unwelcome and unintended consequences. DAUK concludes that the GMC cannot be trusted to take a balanced and considered approach in placing sanctions upon doctors in circumstances such as those faced by Dr Bawa- Garba – doctors making honest mistakes in the context of system failure.

The Doctors’ Association UK are alarmed to learn that, despite the outcome of the Bawa-Garba case, along with the recommendations of the Williams Review, the GMC has continued to appeal MPTS verdicts in the courts. Within the last weeks, the GMC has been urged to show “restraint”, and judges have expressed “regret” at such cases having been brought to the Court of Appeal. DAUK understands that there are a further four appeals due to be heard, all of which involve the GMC appealing to overturn tribunal verdicts.

The Doctors’ Association UK believes that the continuation of such unchecked action by the GMC will lead to a further breakdown in trust between the medical profession and its regulator, with a progressive move towards a culture of fear and blame, rather than one of learning. DAUK urges the Health Secretary to request that the GMC halts its appeals against MPTS verdicts forthwith. Furthermore, DAUK asks the Health Secretary to confirm that the recommendations of the Williams review will be upheld, and that the relevant changes to legislation are made without delay.

read the full letter here