October 30, 2024

BFO -v- General Medical Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case Number: AC-2024-LDS-000132

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court sitting at Leeds

30 October 2024

Before:

HH Judge Davis-White KC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

BFO

-v-

General Medical Council

Order

UPON the appeal of the Appellant, BFO, by Appellant’s Notice filed on 25 June 2024 appealing a decision of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service and seeking also that the appeal hearing should be in private and/or in the alternative for the Appellant and family members to be anonymised

AND the Court considering matters on the papers without a hearing

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Anonymity

1. The following are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in open court:
a) The Appellant’s name
b) The name of any wife or former wife of the Appellant who is referred to by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal whose decision is under appeal in these proceedings (the “MPT”);
c) The name of any parent of any wife or former wife of the Appellant;
d) The name of any child of the Appellant or of any wife or former wife of the Appellant.

2. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings, and whether orally or in writing:
a) in place of references to the Appellant by name, the cipher “BFO”;
b) in place of references to the wife or former wife of the Appellant by name and who is referred to by the MPT, the description “Ms A”;
c) in place of references to the parents of Ms A by name, the descriptions “Mr C” and “Mrs D”.
d) in place of references by name to the child of the Appellant and Ms A, the description “Child B”.

3. The Appellant shall by 4pm on 7 November 2024, lodge a copy of the Notice of Appeal with the Appellant’s name replaced by the Cipher and giving his address as C/O the Appellant’s solicitors (with their address) and otherwise replacing references to the Appellant by name with the Cipher and references to any other Relevant Person with the descriptions provi8de for by this Order (e.g. in Section 11).

4. Pursuant to s11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of any Relevant Person or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of a Relevant Person.

5. For the purposes of paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Order, “Relevant Person” shall mean any of the Appellant, Ms A, Child B and Mr C and Mrs D.

6. The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of any Relevant Person (as defined by sub- paragraph (4)).

7. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4), unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C) (6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.

8. The question of whether any or all of the appeal hearing shall be conducted in private shall be adjourned to the Judge hearing the appeal.

9. Any person wishing to apply to vary of discharge any of paragraphs 1 to 8 of this Order must make an application to the Court served on each party.

10. This Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR r39.2(5).

Reasons

1. This is an appeal from a disciplinary decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (the “MPT”) erasing the Appellant from the register. The MPT held its hearing in private and in its decision has anonymised various persons. This was on the basis that the complainant in this matter, a family member, alleged that the appellant had sexually abused her and her son and the concerns about the impact of publicity on those two persons.

2. At this stage anonymity is appropriate. The question of whether the appeal hearing ort any part or parts of it should be conducted in private is best considered by the Appeal Judge with the benefit of having pre-read for the appeal and with the benefit of advocate’s submissions. At this stage it is not obvious that he entire hearing should be conducted in private.