Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing

Transcription

1 Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing Date of hearing: 5 February 2015 Name of doctor: Dr Veda Hari Prabhakar Ponnaiah Reference Number: Registered qualifications: MB BS 1993 University of Madras Committee Members: Mr Pradeep Agrawal Chair (Lay) Mrs Antoinette Foers Lay Dr John Jones Medical Legal Assessor: Mr Bernard Phillips Secretary to the Committee: Miss Kirsty Garry Type of Case: Conviction Representation: GMC: The General Medical Council was represented by Mr Williams, of Counsel, instructed by GMC Legal. Doctor: Dr Veda Hari Prabhakar Ponnaiah was present and represented by Mr Jenkins of Counsel instructed by Eastwoods. Determination Dr Ponnaiah, At today s hearing the Investigation Committee carefully considered all the material before it including the submissions made by Mr Jenkins on your behalf, and those made on behalf of the GMC by Mr Williams. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Committee is aware that it must have in mind the GMC s duty to act in the public interest, which includes the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. In deciding whether to issue a warning the Committee must 1

2 apply the principle of proportionality, and balance the interests of the public with those of the practitioner. On 21 January 2014 you ed the GMC to inform them that you had been charged that day with being in charge of a motor vehicle when your alcohol level was above the legal limit. You further ed the GMC on 27 April 2014 to inform them that you had been found guilty of the charge at Court on 25 April 2014, where you were given 10 points on your licence and fined The GMC obtained a copy of the police documentation which detailed the incident. On 15 December 2013 you were on the train from Charing Cross to Orpington when two off duty British Transport Police Officers noticed you vomit into the train s bin. You got off the train at Orpington train station along with the two off duty officers. They saw you get into your car, and put on your seatbelt and start your engine. One of the officers tapped on your window and identified herself. She stated that when you opened the car door she could smell intoxicating liquor coming from you. You stated you had been drinking at a Christmas party. You were arrested at the scene for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. You have told police that you had gone to a Christmas party in London, but left your car at Orpington train station. You stated that you had left your wallet in your car, and that you went into your car only to obtain your wallet. You said that it was not your intention to drive. On 25 September 2014 the GMC wrote to you in accordance with Rules 7 and 11 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, and advised you that the Case Examiners had considered the allegations and the supporting information, and decided that this was a case which they may decide to conclude with a warning. On 23 October 2014 your solicitor confirmed on your behalf that if the Case Examiners remained minded to issue you with a warning after considering your comments you wished to exercise your right under Rule 11 (3) of the Rules to an oral hearing before the Investigation Committee. At this hearing Mr Williams submitted that it is proportionate to issue you with a warning as you have been convicted of being in charge of a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath exceeded the prescribed limit. Mr Williams submitted that your evidence of being in the car to obtain your wallet, not having the ignition on and not intending to drive was inconsistent with the police officer s account. He submitted there are two independent accounts that you put your seatbelt on and started the ignition, and these witnesses had no reason to lie. He submitted that you had a trial in Court, the Court had tested your evidence and on the balance of probabilities you had been found guilty. He submitted the fact that your evidence failed to convince the Court is highly relevant. 2

3 He submitted that it is odd that you do not remember whether you put your seatbelt on or not, but you do remember that you did not start the ignition. He submitted you may be in denial and this calls into question your degree of insight. He submitted that your actions are a breach of paragraph 65 of Good Medical Practice. He submitted that in the guidance drink driving is specifically cited as justifying a warning, where it is the first offence and there are no health concerns, and that this applied in this case. He submitted that when the guidance is applied to the facts a warning should be imposed. On your behalf Mr Jenkins submitted that you were not contesting the conviction. He submitted that you had pleaded not guilty, because, at trial you were attempting to argue a defence available under Section 5(2) of the Road Traffic Act This states that if a defendant can prove that there was no likelihood of the vehicle being driven while he was over the limit then the defendant could be found not guilty. The burden of proof is on the defendant in this case. He submitted that if the Court could not decide one way or the other then they had to convict. He further submitted that there is no question of probity arising from your not guilty plea. He submitted that the test is whether there is a likelihood of the vehicle being driven, not if there was any intention of the vehicle being driven, and relied on CPS v Thompson (2008). In your evidence you stated that your intention had been to take a bus to the train station, and on your way back to get a taxi from the train station to your home. You stated that this did not happen because at the last minute your wife asked you to drop your daughter off, so you had to take your car to the station, so as not to miss the train. You presented as evidence the parking tickets (exhibit D1) you had purchased on 14 December 2013 for 2 nights stay at the car park. You stated that you had drunk 3 glasses of wine at the party, which was a sit down meal which had been paid for in advance. You stated you had left your wallet in your car, but your train season ticket was kept separately from this in your pocket. You stated that you had to run for the train, and this is why you were sick on board the train. You stated you went to your car only to obtain your wallet. You stated that you could not remember if you put your seatbelt on or not, but you do remember you did not start the ignition. You stated it was not your intention to drive home. You stated that night was a traumatic experience for you, and that you were sorry and ashamed you were in that situation. You stated this had never happened before, and you had now stopped drinking so there would be no risk of repetition. You conceded in cross examination that your actions were a significant departure from Good Medical Practice and that the conviction would undermine the public trust in the profession. 3

4 On your behalf Mr Jenkins further submitted that your conviction was a drink driving offence, however there is a large spectrum of such offences and the Committee should consider that this offence was at the lower end of the spectrum. He submitted that the Committee should consider the principle of proportionality, as your offence was not one of attempting to drive only of being in charge of a vehicle, and the Court drew this distinction. Mr Jenkins drew the Committee s attention to the many positive testimonials and to the fact this is an isolated incident with no likelihood of repetition. A warning would be a disproportionate response as you have already punished yourself enough and Mr Jenkins invited the Committee to conclude the case with no further action. The Committee considers that the conviction for being in charge while over the prescribed limit is a significant departure from Good Medical Practice. The Committee limited its considerations to the terms of your conviction. There are many good testimonials and mitigating factors: in particular there is no likelihood of repetition, and the Committee accepts that you have taken steps to avoid a repetition. However, it considers that your insight is limited and you were hesitant and inconsistent in some of the answers which you gave in evidence. The apology which you gave in evidence came late in the day. The Committee consider that the public would view this conviction as being a serious departure from Good Medical Practice. A warning is a serious matter, but it is unlikely to affect your immediate career prospects. It is clear from the testimonials that you were a valued member of the team and that is likely to continue. The Committee considers that a warning is appropriate and proportionate in order to protect the public, uphold confidence in the profession, uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and act as a deterrent to repetition. It therefore directs that the following warning be attached to your registration: On 25 April 2014 you were convicted of being in charge of a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath exceeded the prescribed limit. This conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated. The required standards are set out in Good Medical Practice and associated guidance. In this case, paragraph 65 of Good Medical Practice is particularly relevant: You must make sure that your conduct at all times justifies your patients trust in you and the public s trust in the profession. 4

5 Whilst this failing in itself is not so serious as to require any restriction on your registration, it is necessary in response to issue this formal warning. This warning will be published on the List of Registered Medical Practitioners (LRMP) for a period of five years and will be disclosed to any person enquiring about your fitness to practise history. After five years, the warning will cease to be published on LRMP however it will be kept on record and disclosed to employers on request. You will be notified of this decision, in writing, in the next two working days. That concludes the determination of the Investigation Committee in this case. 5