Warning: the facts of this case are extremely distasteful.

Background

In ABC v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 242 (Admin), the appellant, a doctor, appealed under s.40 Medical Act 1983 against a determination of the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal, which had found proved that between 2012 and January 2019, he had physically abused his children using corporal punishment and had decided to strike him off the register. He was suspended pending the outcome of the appeal [1].

Appearing in person, ABC argued that the Tribunal’s finding of fact that his conduct had represented a serious falling short of the standard expected of a doctor [9] and its decision that his fitness to practise had been impaired [9] had been perverse, and it had imposed a manifestly excessive sanction. He also pleaded interference with his rights under the ECHR. The GMC argued that the Court should uphold its determination and denied any interference with ABC’s Convention rights [2].

ABC and his former wife had been members of the Westminster Tradition Church, an allegedly-Christian organisation based in Malaysia and led by one Elijah Chacko, which advocated “strict traditional family values and the physical chastisement of children including the use of the cane, for discipline and their spiritual benefit” [5]. He caned his children on the soles of their feet from the age of two onwards [6].

His arguments, in brief, were that he had not committed any criminal offence, that deliberate and systematic discipline was good parenting rather than a cause for concern [48], that it was commended in Scripture – Proverbs 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” [49] – and that he had maintained a good relationship with four of his children notwithstanding an acrimonious divorce [51].

The judgment

The Court was satisfied that the Tribunal had been entitled to find that ABC’s conduct had amounted to physical abuse [53]:

“It is not an answer that there was a religious motive … induced by the teachings of the Westminster Tradition [Church] or that such conduct is said to be more prevalent in other cultures of other parts of the world or was historically so in this country. Even if there can be adjustments to take into account other cultural and religious norms, the particular conduct fell outside any reasonable adjustments. By reference to the normative understanding of what is physically abusive in England at this point in time in the twenty-first century, the Tribunal was entitled to characterise the course of conduct as deplorable and amounting to physical abuse. Approaching the matter on a rehearing, this appellate court reaches the same conclusion” [65].

Nor was the finding of misconduct perverse:

“On the contrary, it was a finding which was justified on the facts before the Tribunal. As noted above, serious misconduct may be outwith professional practice provided that it is disreputable, and the Tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusions about disrepute which it did. Considering the matter afresh, this appellate court reaches the same conclusion” [70].

As to the Tribunal’s conclusion on impairment:

“Even without deference to the view of the professional experience of the Tribunal, the finding of impairment was justified on the basis of the evidence as a whole. This was a balancing and evaluative exercise of the Tribunal, and there was nothing to show that their conclusion was perverse or otherwise wrong. In any event, approaching the matter by way of a rehearing, the decision of impairment was entirely justified in the circumstances of the case” [85].

Nor had the decision on ABC’s erasure from the register been disproportionate or excessive [97].

On the issue of interference with ABC’s Convention rights under Articles 8 & 9 ECHR, Article 8 was a qualified right [100], and the legitimate aims pursued by a sanction imposed by the GMC in respect of ABC’s misconduct were the interests of public safety and the protection of health and of children [103]. It was legitimate for the Tribunal to treat as misconduct matters that were not necessarily criminal and/or which were outside the professional activities of the doctor. The sanction by the GMC was rationally connected with those aims and was appropriate and necessary in the public interest rather than excessive or disproportionate [105].

Article 9 was likewise a qualified right [110]. There was no limitation on ABC’s religious or other beliefs under Article 9(1). Inasmuch as physical abuse of the vulnerable was a manifestation of religious or other belief, it was subject to such limitations as were prescribed by law, and the interference was in the pursuit of legitimate aims pursued by the GMC – the interests of public safety and the protection of health and the rights of children, whether within the family, or in the community in the context of the safeguarding responsibility of a doctor in the community. Those aims were sufficiently important to justify the interference, and the sanction was rationally connected with those aims [111].

Appeal dismissed [115].