The General Medical Council has comprehensively defeated a challenge in the High Court by the Singapore Medical Council to the GMC's decision to drop a disciplinary case against the British neurologist Simon Shorvon over a research project he headed in Singapore (BMJ 2003;326:839).
The Singapore council found Professor Shorvon guilty of serious professional misconduct in 2004 over the $S10m (£3.3m; €5m; $6.5m) project, which was halted amid allegations that researchers breached confidentiality, failed to obtain informed consent, and disregarded the best interests of vulnerable patients.
The GMC, which was originally alerted to the allegations by an article in the Guardian newspaper in January 2003 (www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,878047,00.html), started investigating possible disciplinary action. But when the case reached the investigation committee of the fitness to practice panel, the chairman decided to discontinue it.
The Singapore regulatory body sought a High Court ruling quashing the decision, which it argued was reached by a process of flawed reasoning. David Pannick QC, for the Singapore council, also contended that the decision was procedurally flawed because the GMC was in breach of a duty to inform it before taking a final decision to drop the case.
But Mr Justice Davis, who described the litigation as “unfortunate,” rejected both arguments. He said the chairman of the investigation committee had “reached a conclusion which was rational and sustainable and one he was entitled to reach.”
The chairman had decided to drop the case after an independent expert consulted by the GMC supported the views of three experts who produced reports on behalf of Professor Shorvon that his role in the research did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The judge added: “The reasoning was logical and supportable and stands up to analysis. The appropriate degree of caution was exercised. It is not shown that the decision was flawed in any public law sense.” The SMC had “fallen a long way short of establishing that the decision should be quashed on this ground.”
The SMC also failed in its argument that the decision was procedurally flawed, because there was no duty on the GMC to consult it before deciding finally to discontinue the case.
Professor Shorvon took up the job of director of the National Neuroscience Institute in Singapore in 2000 on secondment from his UK post as professor of clinical neurology at University College London and consultant neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.
The research project he headed was to study genetic factors in epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, and two other common neurological conditions. But he was dismissed after an inquiry by the institute found breaches of confidentiality and failure to obtain ethical approval and concluded that “the way the testing was done compromised patients' wellbeing and safety.”
He returned to his UK post, which he still holds, and took no part in the Singapore council's proceedings, which found him guilty, fined him $S10 000 and ordered him to pay costs.
Mr Justice Davis said that the final sentence in the GMC's letter telling the Singapore council of its decision to drop the case stated that if further evidence came to light then the case against Professor Shorvon would be reconsidered and might be reopened. “That is of some relevance to the overall reasonableness of the decision to cancel; although as it happens I think that the decision would remain valid even without such a sentence,” he added.
A spokesman said the GMC was “delighted” with the outcome. “Mr Justice Davis's judgment provides a comprehensive endorsement of the process we used and of the robustness of the decision to cancel the hearing.”
Professor Shorvon said, “I have maintained all along that I acted in good faith in conducting the research project and followed internationally accepted professional and ethical standards.”