Pressure group Remedy has won the first round of its legal challenge with the GMC.
The case concerns the regulator’s refusal to investigate the managerial deficiencies that led to the MTAS fiasco.
The judge, Mr Justice Hickinbottom, found in favour of Remedy in a permission hearing so the case can now progress to a substantive hearing in the high court. It’s likely to take place before the end of the year.
After MTAS was shelved in May 2007, Remedy urged the GMC to refer the doctors responsible for managing it to the Fitness to Practise committee for deficient professional performance and/or serious professional misconduct.
MTAS is the online recruitment system for junior doctors that was shelved by ministers after data protection problems, system failures and the rejection of exceptional candidates for medical jobs.
The GMC refused to hold an inquiry into MTAS and its management despite over 1,600 doctors supporting Remedy’s calls.
This week, Mr Justice Hickinbottom acknowledged that MTAS was a disaster which had brought the profession into disrepute. He also recognised the precedent of the case of Roylance, which established the jurisdiction of the GMC over doctors in management and recognised there was a link with the present case.
John Roylance was the chief executive of the Bristol Royal Infirmary during the paediatric heart surgery tragedy. He was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the register in 1997 for failing to manage the situation.
The court also awarded a protective costs order in Remedy’s favour, which means that should the GMC win the case it’s limited in how much money can be recovered from the pressure group. Remedy feared that it could have been prevented from pursuing the case because of the GMC’s superior finances.
Matt Jameson Evans, chair of Remedy, said: “We’re heading into the biggest public health crisis in recent memory and it’s particularly important that the conduct of doctors in senior managerial positions is not impervious to scrutiny.
“Accountability lies at the heart of modern professional medical practice, and there should be no double standards for those sitting at senior levels.”
Remedy had a legal challenge for a judicial review of MTAS refused in the high court by Mr Justice Goldring in 2007.
In a recent blog for Hospital Dr, Remedy’s head of policy Richard Marks said: “There are some who argue that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 2007, that lessons have been learned and that it is time to move on. We disagree. There is an important point of principle at stake around the issue of professional accountability.”
A spokesperson for the GMC said: ”Complainants who are unhappy with decisions taken by the GMC can seek a judicial review of the decision in the high court. Remedy are exercising that right and it is not appropriate for us to comment any further at this stage.”
