Outer House refuses GMC’s petition to continue practice restrictions on medical practitioner after dismissal of indecent images possession charge

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] CSOH 75
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lady Tait

An order for interim conditional registration, restricting the respondent’s ability to practice, was granted by the General Medical Council’s interim orders tribunal after the respondent was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children. Seeking a 12-month extension of that order, the GMC brought a petition to the Outer House of the Court of Session.

The petition was heard by Lady Tait, with Timothy Young appearing for the petitioner and Paul Reid KC for the respondent.

No conclusive evidence of use of incriminating device

After being arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, the respondent – a medical practitioner – referred himself to the General Medical Council in September 2024. A fitness to practise investigation was subsequently commenced, resulting in the respondent’s ability to practise becoming subject to various conditions. Such conditions included additional oversight requirements and restrictions, with particular regard to consultations with underage patients, and were twice maintained by the GMC’s interim orders tribunal.

In January 2026, summary criminal proceedings against the respondent were concluded after the court sustained a plea in bar of trial. The Crown accepted that it would be oppressive to prosecute the respondent on the charge, since there was no conclusive evidence that he had used the device on which the indecent images were found nor that the respondent was able to use the specialised software required to access them.

Seeking an extension of the orders made against the respondent until April 2027 under section 41A(6) of the Medical Act 1983, the GMC argued that more time was required to investigate the extent to which the respondent posed a risk to his patients. It cited its guidance on cases involving criminal investigations which do not proceed to trial, which notes that such a decision “does not necessarily show that there is no ongoing public protection issue requiring restrictive action”. There was a weighty public interest, the GMC submitted, in preserving the conditions restricting the respondent’s access until it could conclude its own investigation against him.

By contrast, the respondent argued that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to extend the orders against him. The GMC had identified no clinical risk against the respondent’s patients and, in any case, had no evidential foundation to make such a suggestion. In light of the impairment the conditions had caused to his ability to pursue and maintain employment, the respondent invited the court to refuse the GMC’s petition, with the result that the orders would be brought to an end.

No basis to assert restrictions necessary to protect public

Framing the case at hand, Lady Tait began by noting: “In the present application for extension of an order for interim conditional registration, the court requires to be satisfied that the order is necessary for the protection of the public and/or in the public interest. It requires to be satisfied that the order is proportionate. As is agreed between parties, this court exercises an original jurisdiction.”

She continued: “It is understandable that the petitioner awaited the outcome of the summary criminal proceedings before progressing its own investigation. The petitioner appears to have been derailed by the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and to be uncertain how to proceed, focusing on why the proceedings ended, why the plea in bar of trial was not opposed and whether further criminal proceedings can be taken. The petitioner appears ill-equipped to advance its own investigation of the respondent.”

Addressing the GMC’s submissions, she added: “The petitioner is correct to observe that criminal proceedings and regulatory action serve different purposes; case examiners may have different information, different evidential rules and a different standard of proof; and an acquittal or decision not to proceed does not necessarily show that there is no ongoing public protection issue requiring restrictive action. However, in seeking an extension of the respondent’s interim conditional registration, the petitioner bears the onus of satisfying the court that the criteria for extension are met.”

In that regard, she continued: “The petitioner identifies the correct criteria (namely the protection of the public and/or the public interest) but fails to apply them to the respondent’s circumstances. In general terms, an allegation of possession of indecent images engages public protection and public interest but the petitioner fails to address the available evidence or lack thereof. The petitioner asserts that the order is necessary for the protection of the public but does not identify any evidence in support of that nor realistically how that might be obtained standing the conclusion of criminal proceedings … The petitioner offers no more than to review the criminal investigation which failed to establish an evidential link. There is currently no basis for the assertion that interim conditional registration is necessary for the protection of the public.”

Lady Tait concluded: “[The GMC] has been unable to demonstrate any urgency or focus in its investigation since January 2026. While the court is mindful of the volume of the petitioner’s cases, the petitioner does not seek to rely on any such factor in progressing the present case. Weighing the gravity of the allegation (prosecuted on summary complaint) and any potential risk of harm to patients against the insufficiency of evidence (after criminal investigation), the lack of focus of the petitioner’s continuing investigation and the prejudice to the practitioner, I am not satisfied that the order is necessary for the protection of the public and/or in the public interest nor that the order is proportionate.”

The petition was accordingly refused.