Wales. 1. On 6 November 2014 at the Gwynedd Magistrates Court you were convicted of:

Transcription

1 PUBLIC RECORD Date 02 April 2015 Name of Medical Practitioner Dr Gwyn Haydn Roberts Primary medical qualification MB BCh 1993 University of Wales GMC reference number Type of case New - Conviction / Caution Outcome on impairment Impaired Summary of outcome Suspension, 12 months. Review hearing directed Immediate order imposed Panel Lay Panellist (Chair) Lay Panellist Medical Panellist Legal Assessor Secretary to the Panel Mrs Eileen Carr Mrs Lucy Reid Dr Nisreen Booya Mr Richard Barraclough QC Ms Angela Carney Attendance and Representation Medical Practitioner Medical Practitioner s Representative GMC Representative Not present and represented Mr Richard Climie instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer Ms Jane Oldfield Allegation and Findings of Fact 1. On 6 November 2014 at the Gwynedd Magistrates Court you were convicted of: a. causing serious injury by dangerous driving; b. dangerous driving; 1

2 c. driving with alcohol level above the legal limit. 2. On 12 December 2014 at Mold Crown Court for the offences listed in paragraph 1, you were sentenced to: a. 27 months imprisonment; b. a disqualification from driving for a period of four years; c. endorsement of your licence. Attendance of Press / Public The hearing was all heard in public. Determination on Facts and Impairment 1. At the outset of proceedings, on behalf of Dr Roberts, you admitted and the Panel found proved all of the paragraphs of the allegation as follows: 1. On 6 November 2014 at the Gwynedd Magistrates Court you were convicted of: a. causing serious injury by dangerous driving; b. dangerous driving; c. driving with alcohol level above the legal limit. 2. On 12 December 2014 at Mold Crown Court for the offences listed in paragraph 1, you were sentenced to: a. 27 months imprisonment; b. a disqualification from driving for a period of four years; c. endorsement of your licence. 2

3 2. The Panel has had regard to the signed Certificate of Conviction dated 6 November 2014 and to Rule 34(3) of the General Medical Council (GMC) Fitness to Practise Rules Order of Council 2004 (as amended), (the Rules) which states: Production of a certificate purporting to be under the hand of a competent officer of a Court in the United Kingdom or overseas that a person has been convicted of a criminal offence or, in Scotland, an extract conviction, shall be conclusive evidence of the offence committed. 3. The Panel has noted that the charges are consistent with the content of the Certificate of Conviction. Accordingly, the Panel accepts this as evidence of the offence committed and sentence imposed. The Panel is satisfied that the requirements of Rule 34(3) have been met and therefore the allegation has been found proved. Impairment 4. The Panel has now considered, under Rule 17(2)(k) of the Rules, whether on the basis of the facts admitted and found proved, Dr Roberts fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction. In considering the question of impairment, the Panel has taken account of all the evidence adduced and the submissions made by both parties. Background 5. In November 2010 Dr Roberts received a conviction for a drink driving offence. Dr Roberts was investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) XXX. He agreed to undertakings on his registration. In September 2013 the undertakings were removed and by his own admission he started drinking again one month later. 6. On 17 June 2014 Dr Roberts had been at his mother s address in Criccieth when an argument ensued. Dr Roberts went to his car to allow things to calm down. Whilst in his car he consumed one and a half litres of cider and two cans of strong lager. Dr Roberts returned to his mother s house in an attempt to make amends but failed to do so. Thirty minutes after consuming alcohol Dr Roberts decided to drive home to South Wales. During the journey he drove dangerously and overtook another car on a solid white line, where overtaking was forbidden. This resulted in a collision with an oncoming car. Submissions 7. Ms Oldfield, on behalf of the GMC, referred the Panel to his conviction and custodial sentence of 27 months. She submitted that this behaviour has brought the profession into disrepute. She submitted that in these circumstances the inevitable conclusion is that Dr Roberts Fitness to Practise is impaired and in order to maintain 3

4 and uphold the proper standards in the profession a finding of impairment should be made. 8. On behalf of Dr Roberts you accepted that his Fitness to Practise is impaired by reason of his conviction and imprisonment. XXX. The Panel s Approach 9. In exercising its own judgement the Panel has taken into account the public interest, which includes the need to protect patients and the public, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. In its deliberations, the Panel has considered all the evidence and attached what weight it considers appropriate to it. The Panel s Decision 10. The Panel has noted the gravity of Dr Roberts current offence; driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, being well over twice the legal limit; starting on a 120 mile journey, over a route that has been described as tortuous ; driving dangerously and overtaking at speed with limited visibility and veering onto verges at times. This resulted in a collision causing serious injuries to the driver and passenger of the other vehicle. 11. The Panel noted that Dr Roberts driving was so dangerous that one witness to the accident video recorded Dr Roberts car for over 90 seconds and another witness stated that it was the most dangerous overtake she had ever seen. 12. The Panel also noted that the seriousness of these offences is reflected in a custodial sentence imposed on Dr Roberts which would have been much longer but for his early guilty plea. Further, in sentencing Dr Roberts the Crown Court judge disqualified Dr Roberts from driving for four years with the requirement that he must take an extended driving test before he will be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car again. 13. The Panel has borne in mind its primary duty to protect patients and the public, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour within the profession. 14. The Panel has noted that this is Dr Roberts second conviction for drink driving. It has also noted that Dr Roberts first conviction resulted in undertakings being imposed on his registration. It has also noted that Dr Roberts started drinking again only one month after the undertakings were removed. The Panel considers that Dr Roberts failed to respond to previous warnings and intervention by the GMC and as such there is a risk of repetition. 4

5 15. The Panel finds that the offences Dr Roberts committed were so serious that a finding that his fitness to practise is not impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and bring the profession into disrepute. 16. In making a finding of impairment the Panel considers that its decision sends a message to Dr Roberts, the profession and the public that Dr Roberts behaviour was wholly unacceptable. 17. In the circumstances, the Panel has determined that Dr Roberts fitness to practise is impaired by reason of Dr Robert s conviction. Determination on Sanction Mr Climie: 1. Having determined that Dr Roberts fitness to practise is impaired by reason of a conviction, the Panel has now considered what action, if any, it should take with regard to Dr Roberts registration. 2. In so doing, the Panel has given careful consideration to all the evidence adduced, together with Ms Oldfield s submissions on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC) and those made by you on Dr Roberts behalf. Submissions 3. Ms Oldfield referred the Panel to paragraphs 69 and 75 of the GMC s Indicative Sanctions Guidance (last revised April 2014) (The ISG). She stated that Dr Roberts will be incarcerated until at least December 2015 with the possibility of day release in July She acknowledged that there are underlying XXX issues but reminded the Panel that little is known about Dr Roberts XXX attitudinal issues. XXX. She submitted that the appropriate sanction in Dr Roberts case is suspension and that it should be for the maximum of 12 months with a review. XXX. 4. You agreed with Ms Oldfield s submissions in relation to the appropriate sanction proposed by the GMC in this case. You submitted that XXX a 12 month suspension would allow Dr Roberts XXX, which will be of assistance to a future Review Panel. XXX. You reminded the Panel that despite Dr Roberts difficulties there has not been, to date, any impact on patient safety. The Panel s Approach 5. The decision as to the appropriate sanction to impose, if any, in this case is a matter for this Panel exercising its own judgement. 5

6 6. In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken account of the ISG. It has borne in mind that the purpose of the sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect patients and the wider public interest, although they may have a punitive effect. 7. Throughout its deliberations, the Panel has applied the principle of proportionality, balancing Dr Roberts interests with the public interest. The public interest includes, amongst other things, the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. 8. In coming to its decision as to the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose in Dr Roberts case, the Panel first considered whether to conclude the case by taking no action. The Panel considers that there are no extraordinary circumstances in this case. The Panel determined that in view of the serious nature and gravity of Dr Roberts offence and his imprisonment, it would be neither sufficient, proportionate nor in the public interest, to conclude this case by taking no action. 9. The Panel next considered whether it would be sufficient to impose conditions on Dr Roberts registration. It has borne in mind that any conditions imposed would need to be appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable. 10. The Panel has borne in mind that this is Dr Roberts second drink driving offence. It has noted that Dr Roberts commenced drinking alcohol only one month after his undertakings were removed and that he is currently in prison. The Panel is of the opinion that a period of conditional registration would not adequately reflect the serious nature of Dr Roberts conviction and determined that conditions could not be devised that would protect the public interest and maintain public confidence in the medical profession. The Panel has, therefore, determined that it would not be sufficient to direct the imposition of conditions on Dr Roberts registration. 11. The Panel then went on to consider whether suspending Dr Roberts registration would be appropriate and proportionate. XXX. The Panel considers that despite this being Dr Roberts second conviction for drink driving he appears to have developed some insight XXX. It has taken account of the positive testimonials from colleagues and patients and notes that there has been no impact on patients or on his professional life. It also notes that Dr Roberts has engaged with appropriate services and with the GMC. 12. However, the Panel considers that due to the gravity of Dr Roberts drink driving conviction and subsequent imprisonment for a period of 27 months, a signal must be sent to Dr Roberts, the profession and the public that his behaviour was unbefitting of a medical practitioner. It considers that Dr Roberts case is sufficiently serious that action is required. It considers that suspension for the maximum period of 12 months is necessary. Accordingly, the Panel has determined to impose an order of suspension on Dr Roberts registration for a period of 12 months. In 6

7 imposing the maximum period, the Panel considers that, it will give Dr Roberts the opportunity to reflect on his conviction XXX. 13. The effect of the foregoing direction is that, unless Dr Roberts exercises his right of appeal, his name will be suspended from the Medical Register 28 days from the date on which written notice of this decision is deemed to have been served upon him. 14. Shortly before the end of the period of suspension, Dr Roberts case will be reviewed by a Fitness to Practise Panel. A letter will be sent to him about the arrangements for the review hearing. At this next hearing, the Panel reviewing Dr Roberts case will wish to be assured that he has made progress XXX and reflected on his conviction. The Review Panel may be assisted by the following: Evidence of further reflection on the behaviour which led to his conviction XXX Evidence that he has kept his medical knowledge up to date during the period of suspension XXX Reports from any other professionals responsible for his care Any other information, including testimonials, which might assist the Panel in reviewing his case. Determination on Immediate Order Mr Climie: 1. Having determined that Dr Roberts registration will be subject to a suspension order for a period of 12 months, the Panel has considered, in accordance with Section 38 of the Medical Act 1983, as amended, whether his registration should be subject to an immediate order. 2. On behalf of the General Medical Council, Ms Oldfield submitted that an immediate order is necessary, given the concerns raised in this case and bearing in mind that Dr Roberts is serving a custodial sentence and there may be some scope for day release. She submitted that there was no reason for not imposing an immediate order. 3. You agreed with Ms Oldfield s submission that an immediate order is necessary. 7

8 4. Having considered the submissions made and in the light of Dr Roberts serious conviction for drink driving and subsequent imprisonment for 27 months, the Panel is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest for his registration to be suspended forthwith. 5. The substantive direction for suspension, as already announced, will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed to have been served upon Dr Roberts, unless he lodges an appeal in the interim. If he does lodge an appeal, the immediate order for suspension will remain in force until the appeal is determined. 6. That concludes this case. Confirmed Date 02 April 2015 Mrs Eileen Carr, Chair 8