That being registered under the Medical Act 1983, as amended

PUBLIC RECORD Dates 26 January 2015-30 January 2015 Name of Medical Practitioner Mr Gurdip Singh SHERGILL Primary medical qualification MB BS 1989 University of London GMC reference number 3311282 Type of case New - Conviction / Caution New - Misconduct Outcome on impairment Impaired Not Impaired Summary of outcome Suspension, 2 months. Panel Lay Panellist (Chair) Medical Panellist Lay Panellist Legal Assessor Secretary to the Panel Ms Gill Mullen Dr Sarah Vause Mr Martyn Green Mr Michael Simon Ms Patrizia Gargiulo Attendance and Representation Medical Practitioner Medical Practitioner s Representative GMC Representative Present and represented Mr Alan Jenkins, Council, instructed by Eastwoods Solicitors Ms Jane Oldfield, Counsel Allegation and Findings of Fact That being registered under the Medical Act 1983, as amended Paragraph 1 Between July 2014 and October 2014 you were employed as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Salisbury District Hospital. Admitted and found proved 1

Paragraph 2 On 27 July 2014, you were charged with driving whilst under the influence of alcohol at Ringwood Police Station. Admitted and found proved Paragraph 3 Following being charged with driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, you knowingly failed to declare this fact to: a) Your Line Manager at Salisbury District Hospital; (amended under Rule 17(3)) i. On the date of being charged, or Admitted and found proved ii. Prior to your sentencing conviction for this offence on 26 18 August 2014; (amended under Rule 17(3)) Not found proved b) the General Medical Council; i. On the date of being charged, or Admitted and found proved ii. Within a reasonable period thereafter. Found proved Paragraph 4 On 18 August 2014 at the Southampton West Hampstead Magistrates Court you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. (amended under Rule 17(3)) Admitted and found Paragraph 5 On 26 August 2014 you were sentenced to: a. 8 weeks custody suspended for 12 months; Admitted and found proved b. a Programme Requirement to participate in the drink impaired drivers programme for 14 days, (sessions); Admitted and found proved c. a Supervision Requirement to attend appointments with the Responsible Officer or another person at such times and places as the officer says; Admitted and found proved 2

d. a disqualification from driving for a period of 30 months. Admitted and found proved Paragraph 6 During a meeting with Dr A regarding your conviction for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol on 27 August 2014, you: (amended under Rule 17(3)) a. told Dr A that you had not received, a fine or any other sanction, or words to that effect; (amended under Rule 17(3)) Found proved b. told Dr A that you had been banned from driving for two years. (amended under Rule 17(3)) Found proved Paragraph 7 That your conduct set out in paragraphs 3 and 7 6 was: (amended under Rule 17(3)) a. misleading; Found proved b. dishonest. Not found proved And by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your: (a) (b) Conviction, Adverse physical or mental health Attendance of Press / Public The Panel agreed, in accordance with Rule 41 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, that the press and public be excluded from those parts of the hearing where matters under consideration were deemed confidential. Determination on Facts Mr Shergill: Submission under Rule 17(3) 1. Ms Oldfield made an application to amend the following Paragraphs in the allegation. Paragraph 3 a add Your Line Manager at at beginning of paragraph Paragraph 3 a ii amend to read Prior to your sentencing conviction on 26 18 August 2014 3

Paragraph 4 change Southampton to West Hampshire Paragraph 6 change all references to Dr A to Dr A Paragraph 7 strike out Paragraph 8 change Paragraph number to Paragraph 7 and change 7 to 6 2. Mr Jenkins did not oppose any of these amendments. 3. The panel acceded to Ms Oldfield s application. Admissions 4. At the outset of the case, you made admissions as follows: Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 3 a i Paragraph 3 b i Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 in its entirety 5. These Paragraphs have therefore been found proved. Determination on Facts Background 6. You were employed as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Salisbury District Hospital (the Hospital) at the material time. You also practised at New Hall Hospital in Salisbury at the material time. 7. This case concerns events which occurred in July and August 2014. The allegation of impaired fitness to practise is based on your conviction for drink driving and related misconduct arising out of your conduct towards colleagues, your employer and the GMC. 8. On 27 July 2014 you were charged at Ringwood Police Station with driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. On 18 August 2014 you appeared at West Hampshire Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty. You were convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath exceeded the prescribed limited. You were sentenced on 26 August 2014. Witnesses 9. Ms Oldfield made an application to hear Mr B s evidence via telephone. This was due to his work commitments which made travel to Manchester difficult, and in 4

the interests of saving costs. Mr Jenkins did not oppose this application. The panel took advice from the Legal Assessor and bearing in mind the interests of justice agreed to hear Mr B s evidence by telephone. 10. Mr Jenkins made submissions to hear the evidence of Ms C and Dr D by telephone. This was due to the relatively short time each of these witnesses would be required for and the distance they would have to travel for this short period of time. Ms Oldfield did not oppose these applications. The panel took advice from the Legal Assessor and bearing in mind the interests of justice agreed to hear the evidence of these witnesses by telephone. 11. The panel has considered the oral and written evidence of the following witnesses on behalf of the GMC: Dr A (Medical Director, the Hospital) (by video link) Mr B (Consultant Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, the Hospital) 12. The panel also received the following evidence from the GMC: Your charge sheet, dated 27 July 2014 Your email to the GMC, dated 18 August 2014 A memorandum of your conviction Telephone note of a call from you to the GMC, dated 1 September 2014 13. The panel has considered the oral and/or written evidence of the following witnesses on your behalf: Yourself Ms C (General Manager, New Hall Hospital) Dr D (Consultant in Anaesthetics and Intensive Care, the Hospital) 14. You presented additional information including: Your CV (attached to your witness statement) Email correspondence (attached to your witness statement) Letter from Ms C to the magistrates court, written at your request, dated 29 July 2014 Panel s approach 15. The panel considered that all of the live witnesses were credible, that is that they were all doing their best to assist the panel in adjudicating on your case. Some of the evidence, such as that of Ms C, was also very clearly evidenced by contemporaneous or near contemporaneous documentary evidence. Where witnesses were relying more on their memory of events, the panel found that their evidence was not always as reliable. 5

Findings 16. The panel has considered separately all the facts remaining in dispute and has made the following findings: Paragraph 1 Between July 2014 and October 2014 you were employed as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Salisbury District Hospital. Admitted and found proved Paragraph 2 On 27 July 2014, you were charged with driving whilst under the influence of alcohol at Ringwood Police Station. Admitted and found proved Paragraph 3 Following being charged with driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, you knowingly failed to declare this fact to: c) Your Line Manager at Salisbury District Hospital; (amended under Rule 17(3)) i. On the date of being charged, or Admitted and found proved ii. Prior to your sentencing conviction for this offence on 26 18 August 2014; (amended under Rule 17(3)) Not found proved 17. The panel considered the evidence before it and the balance of probabilities in coming to this decision. Your own evidence as regards this incident was not definitive and you were unable to confirm the exact date when you disclosed this information. Mr B s evidence was that although he had heard gossip relating to the incident, you did not inform him about it until 19 August 2014, and he did not discuss the matter with Dr A until 27 August 2014. 18. The panel also considered the evidence of Ms C. It considered that she gave an open and honest account of matters as she recalled them and as evidenced by the relevant documents. She stated that you had told her about the drink drinking charge on 28 July 2014 and this conversation was confirmed in a letter from her to Southampton Magistrates Court on 29 July 2014. She told the panel that during a subsequent conversation on 1 August 2014 you had stated that you had spoken to Mr B in similar terms. You told the panel that Mr B had said words to the effect that 6

you should go on your planned holiday, not to worry and to discuss it with him on your return. 19. The panel has taken into account the fact that Ms C s first conversation with you was documented in a letter to the court which was dated the following day. It has also considered that Mr B may have forgotten that the conversation in July occurred and only remembered your conversation in August, although he mentioned to Ms E (Directorate Manager) on 30 July 2014 that he had heard gossip about the incident. 20. The panel finds this subparagraph not proved on the balance of probabilities. It accepts the proposition that is it actually more likely than not that, having explained the situation in detail to Ms C at New Hall, that you would have informed your colleagues at the Hospital. This is particularly so as many of the staff would have known one another in any event. In the circumstances, the panel was not satisfied that the GMC had proved that you did not inform the Hospital until after your conviction. d) the General Medical Council; i. On the date of being charged, or Admitted and found proved ii. Within a reasonable period thereafter. Found proved 21. While the panel noted that you informed the GMC of your conviction without delay, you failed to inform it as required following your being charged with the offence. The panel took into account the possibility that you were unaware of the obligation to inform the GMC when charged with a criminal offence and were only aware that convictions must be reported. The panel also considered what was meant in the wording of this part of the allegation by a reasonable period and was aware that you did inform the GMC within three and a half weeks. However, even given the fact that you were on holiday for part of this period, the panel considered that this was too long a period to leave the regulator unaware of potentially significant information and therefore finds this paragraph proved. Paragraph 4 On 18 August 2014 at the Southampton West Hampshire Magistrates Court you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. (amended under Rule 17(3)) Admitted and found proved Paragraph 5 7

On 26 August 2014 you were sentenced to: Paragraph 6 d. 8 weeks custody suspended for 12 months; Admitted and found proved e. a Programme Requirement to participate in the drink impaired drivers programme for 14 days, (sessions); Admitted and found proved f. a Supervision Requirement to attend appointments with the Responsible Officer or another person at such times and places as the officer says; Admitted and found proved d. a disqualification from driving for a period of 30 months. Admitted and found proved During a meeting with Dr A regarding your conviction for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol on 27 August 2014, you: (amended under Rule 17(3)) c. told Dr A that you had not received, a fine or any other sanction, or words to that effect; (amended under Rule 17(3)) Found proved 22. While it is clear that you informed Dr A about being banned from driving and assured her that it would not affect your ability to continue working, you have admitted that you did not specifically disclose the suspended sentence. While the panel understands that you may have felt that the other parts of your sentence were irrelevant as they did not impact on your ability to practise as a doctor, the panel was struck by Dr A s description of her shock on reading the newspaper reports which disclosed the full extent of the sentence imposed upon you. The panel accepts that the meeting with Dr A was relatively brief but having carefully assessed her evidence and yours on this point, the panel concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, you did say words to the effect that you had not received a fine or other sanction. d. told Dr A that you had been banned from driving for two years. (amended under Rule 17(3)) Found proved 23. The panel noted from the memorandum of conviction that your original disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence was for 30 months. It further noted that this was to be reduced by 228 days (approximately seven and a half months) upon completion of an approved course. In your own mind, therefore, 8

having completed such a course, your total ban would be 22 months which could reasonably be called two years. Dr A learnt the full extent of your driving ban later from a newspaper report. The panel finds it likely, on the balance of probabilities, that you did give her the impression that your ban was for two years rather than the 30 months originally handed down in the magistrates court. Paragraph 7 That your conduct set out in paragraphs 3 and 7 6 was: (amended under Rule 17(3)) b. misleading; Found proved in relation to Paragraphs 3 a i, 3 b i, 3 b ii, 6 a and 6 b 24. With regard to the proven matters in Paragraph 3 a i, the panel considered that your failure to disclose the fact that you had been charged on the day of the charge was misleading but the panel believes that this is likely to have been unintentional rather than a deliberate omission. Similarly, your failure to inform the GMC of the charge against you may have been as a result of being unaware of your obligation to inform it of the charge and your belief that you only had to report your later conviction. Again, this was misleading by omission rather than through any intent on your part. 25. With regard to the matters in Paragraph 6, the panel considered the context of your discussion with Dr A and what appears to have been your motive for giving her the information that you did. You omitted to give her the full details of the sentence imposed on you and were selective in only telling her what you believed she needed to know as regards the impact on your work. The conversation has been variously reported as lasting between 10 and 15 minutes and you stated that you were waiting to complete the consenting of patients prior to starting your afternoon operating list. The panel accepts that this may have been too short a time to go into great detail, particularly given the context that you were due in theatre, but nevertheless, the effect on Dr A was that she was misled as to the full extent of your sentence. b. dishonest. Not found proved in relation to Paragraphs 3 a i, 3 b i, 3 b ii, 6 a and 6 b 26. In reaching its conclusions on this Paragraph the panel was mindful of your previous good character and the evidence it heard and read as to your standing with your colleagues, your integrity and trustworthiness. 27. With regard to the proved matters in Paragraph 3, the panel considered that while you were misleading, you were applying what you considered to be the appropriate level of disclosure required by the Trust s disciplinary procedures and your duty to the GMC. You were not fully aware of your obligations and rather than seeking to hide information you were simply unaware of the level of disclosure 9

necessary to both bodies. The panel was not satisfied that there was cogent evidence of intent on your part to deceive either organisation. This was especially in light of your having been very frank with Ms C and your expectation that the full extent of your criminal case would be published in the local press in due course. 28. With regard to the matters in Paragraph 6, the panel considers that you were again misleading, but did not intend that Dr A be misled. The panel has accepted that you gave what you considered to be essential information relating to your ability to fulfil your contractual obligations. In all the circumstances of the case, the panel was not satisfied that there was cogent evidence of intent on your part to deceive Dr A. Determination on Impairment Mr Shergill: 1. The panel has now considered under Rule 17(2)(k) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 (the Rules) whether, on the basis of the facts found proved, your fitness to practise is currently impaired. It has taken account of the evidence adduced throughout this hearing. It has also taken account of the submissions made by Ms Oldfield on behalf of the GMC and Mr Jenkins on your behalf. Submissions 2. Ms Oldfield reminded the panel of the potential causes leading to impairment as determined by Dame Janet Smith in her fifth Shipman Report and as listed in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), in particular bringing the profession into disrepute. 3. With regard to your conviction, Ms Oldfield asked the panel to consider whether the relatively recent nature of this indicates that your fitness to practise is currently impaired. With regard to misconduct, she asked the panel to consider the two-stage test as to whether this can be found. First, it should consider whether the facts found proved amount to serious professional misconduct under the Medical Act 1983 (MA 1983). Secondly, it must consider whether as a result your fitness to practise is currently impaired. 4. When considering the issue of whether or not your fitness to practise is currently impaired, Ms Oldfield reminded the panel of the judgment in Grant, paragraph 71, which states: it is essential, when deciding whether fitness to practise is impaired, not to lose sight of the fundamental considerations namely the need to protect the public and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as to maintain public confidence in the profession. 10

5. Ms Oldfield further reminded the panel that it should consider both your past conduct and any insight shown by you in determining whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired. 6. Ms Oldfield then made submissions on the particular aspects of your case. 7. As regards your conviction, she submitted that it is sufficient to establish current impairment because of the effect of your conviction on public confidence in the profession. She reminded the panel that the events leading to your conviction occurred less than a year ago. You made a deliberate decision to drive your car while over the prescribed alcohol limit when there was no need to do so; there was no emergency requiring this course of action; and no explanation from you as to why you behaved in this way. She further submitted that your alcohol reading was significant at three and a half times the legal limit. She reminded the panel that the magistrates court considered that only a custodial sentence, albeit suspended, was appropriate due to this level of alcohol. You are still serving your sentence. The risk you took was enormous and you could have caused serious injury or death to yourself or others. Ms Oldfield submitted that your behaviour was so far below the standards expected of a doctor that your fitness to practise is currently impaired and that the need to uphold the standards of the medical profession would be seriously undermined if current impairment were not found. 8. As regards misconduct, Ms Oldfield submitted that your failure to promptly inform the GMC of the charge against you undermines public confidence in profession. She stated that you failed to check your obligation to the GMC and that this is in breach of Paragraph 75 of Good Medical Practice (GMP) which states that, You must tell us without delay if you have been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence. Ms Oldfield submitted that your failure shows that you did not take the offence seriously enough and failed to take your obligation to your regulator seriously. She submitted that, furthermore, on 27 August 2014 you only had a short conversation with Dr A but made no attempt to seek her out later and fully inform her of events. 9. Ms Oldfield submitted that as far as remorse and insight are concerned, your own words and actions following the offence sought to minimise your responsibility and therefore showed a lack of insight. You failed to tell both Dr A and Mr B the full details of your sentence and your letter to colleagues dated 1 September 2014 suggested that you were unlucky to have been caught. 10. Mr Jenkins denied that you are a danger to the public in any form and that public confidence would not be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made. He reminded the panel that it may choose not to find current impairment and to issue a warning. 2

11. Mr Jenkins submitted that your drink driving conviction has had no impact in relation to your work. Mr B checked if you were on call at the time of the incident and found that you were not. Mr Jenkins submitted that you have expressed apologies, contrition and remorse from the start and that you were candid in your discussion with Ms C. 12. Mr Jenkins reminded the panel that it found that your failure to tell the GMC promptly did not amount to dishonesty. He stated that you have already been convicted and reminded the panel that it is not here to re-sentence you. He said that you have been publically shamed in the newspapers. 13. Mr Jenkins finally submitted that in all the circumstances, and with no aggravating features surrounding these events, your fitness to practise is not currently impaired. Panel s decision 14. Whilst the panel has considered both parties submissions, the decision as to whether your fitness to practise is impaired is one for it alone to reach, exercising its own judgment. 15. Throughout its deliberations, the panel has borne in mind its responsibility to protect the public interest. The public interest includes not only the protection of patients but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour within the profession. Misconduct 16. While the panel found that your actions were misleading, it did not consider you to have been dishonest in its Determination of Facts. 17. Your letter to your colleagues of 1 September 2014, in which you state that you were unlucky to have been caught, was later retracted. You did inform both the hospital and the GMC of your conviction although this was not a full disclosure in the first instance, and was late in the second. The panel has set out its reasoning for coming to its decision on these matters in its previous Determination. 18. The panel was of the view that you should have been aware of your responsibility to be familiar with [GMP] and the explanatory guidance which supports it, and to follow the guidance they contain (paragraph 3, GMP). It was also of the view that you should have sought out Dr A following your initial discussion to give her a full explanation of events. The panel has determined that while these actions fell below the standards expected of a doctor, they could not be considered to fall sufficiently far below those standards to constitute serious misconduct. The test for misconduct has not been met. 3

19. The panel then went on to consider whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired solely in respect to your conviction. Conviction 20. The panel has noted the key facts regarding your conviction and has again considered the documentary evidence before it. It also considered the effect of your conviction on public confidence in the profession. 21. The panel noted that this was a single incident; had not occurred previously; has not been repeated since; and that you were neither at work nor on call at the time. However, the panel has also considered the relatively recent occurrence of the incident, the significantly high reading of alcohol in your breath, and the fact that the magistrates court gave you a custodial sentence which, although suspended, is still current. The panel was particularly concerned that your actions placed both yourself and the public at risk. 22. The panel has taken account of paragraph 65 of GMP which states that You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients trust in you and the public s trust in the profession. Your conviction jeopardises that trust, notwithstanding that it was an isolated incident. The panel is of the view that your conviction and sentence, bearing in mind the surrounding facts, represent a serious breach of the provisions of GMP. 23. The panel has determined that your conviction and sentence have brought the profession into disrepute and are of such significance that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in this case. 24. In all the circumstances, therefore, the panel has determined that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your conviction. Determination on Sanction Mr Shergill: 1. Having found that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your conviction, the panel has considered what sanction, if any, it should impose on your registration. Submissions 2. Ms Oldfield reminded the panel that Sanction was a matter for its own judgment. She submitted that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in your case is one of Suspension. This would reflect the seriousness of your conviction in 4

its context, namely the high alcohol content in your breath and the prison sentence imposed. She submitted that the personal mitigation offered in testimonials presented to the panel must be balanced with the seriousness of your conviction. 3. She stated that a sanction of No Action would be inappropriate to maintain public confidence in the profession. 4. She submitted that Conditions were not workable in your case either for safeguarding public confidence or in relation to the events which led to your conviction. Conditions would not be able to remedy the situation; there is no specific need to supervise or restrict your practice; no retraining is required and there are no health concerns. 5. Ms Oldfield submitted that Suspension is the most suitable sanction in your case. She reminded the panel of the criteria for Suspension at paragraph 69 of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance (ISG) that, Suspension has a deterrent effect and can be used to send out a signal to the doctor, the profession and public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting a registered medical practitioner. She also asked the panel to consider paragraph 75 of the ISG which lists the factors where Suspension may be appropriate, in particular the following: a a serious breach of Good Medical Practice where the misconduct is not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and where therefore complete removal from the register would not be in the public interest, but which is so serious that any sanction lower than a suspension would not be sufficient to serve the need to protect the public interest e no evidence of harmful, deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems f no evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since incident g panel is satisfied doctor has insight and does not pose a significant risk of repeating behaviour. 6. Ms Oldfield submitted that Suspension was appropriate given the seriousness of the conduct which was found to have caused impairment, and in order to uphold standards and maintain public confidence in the profession. 7. Mr Jenkins submitted that the suspended sentence you received in the magistrates court was solely as a result of the high reading of alcohol in your breath. They are interconnected rather than two separate aggravating factors. 8. Mr Jenkins presented a folder of testimonials to the panel. In mitigation he stated that there were no fears for patient safety, you are highly regarded by your colleagues, students and patients, you were not on call or working at the time of the 5

offence and there is no suggestion that you are endangering patients. He also stated that you have not been restricted from working by the GMC or the Hospital in the interim. You have had a good level of insight at all stages and have demonstrated an appropriate response to the events. Furthermore, you have given up alcohol, there is no history of driving offences and no suggestion of repetition. Mr Jenkins also reminded that panel that dishonesty has not been found. 9. Mr Jenkins noted that taking no action was rare but that there were cases where this would be appropriate. He submitted that the public, knowing the facts, would say that a judgment of impairment and the sanction by a criminal court was enough. He suggested that it was possible not to make an order. 10. In relation to Suspension, Mr Jenkins reminded the panel that you are a useful doctor providing a high level of care for patients. You undertake shoulder surgery, a specialised area, not done by others at the Hospital. He argued that if you were suspended there would be consequences both for patients and the Hospital. If you are suspended your patients would need to be rebooked and there would be additional pressure on your colleagues. Your teaching commitments would not be met and student rotas would have had to be rearranged. Mr Jenkins submitted that Suspension would only be relevant if you had been dishonest, but that you have been frank and open. 11. Mr Jenkins also pointed out the personal consequences of Suspension for you. Suspension may lead to de-skilling and you being prevented from earning an income, and you have a mortgage, legal fees and other financial obligations to consider. 12. In summing up, Mr Jenkins submitted that the panel could properly stop at no action as you do not need restrictions on your practice and patients do not need protection. He asked that if Suspension was the only option it should be for an extremely short period. Anything longer than six months would cause you immense problems and significant consequences for colleagues and patients. Ultimately it could lead to the termination of your contract. The panel s decision 13. The panel recognises that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive but that any sanction may have a punitive effect. In reaching its decision as to the appropriate sanction, the panel has taken account of all the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case including your testimonials. The panel has taken into account the relevant paragraphs of the ISG and has had regard to the submissions of both counsel. 14. Throughout its deliberations the panel has borne in mind the public interest, including the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and 6

behaviour within the profession. It has taken account of the principle of proportionality and weighed the public interest with your own interests. 15. The panel first considered whether it would be sufficient to conclude your case without taking any action. In the light of the serious nature of your conviction, the panel considers that it would be wholly inappropriate to conclude this case with No Action. This is not an exceptional case and taking No Action would be likely to undermine public confidence in the profession. 16. The panel next considered whether it was appropriate to impose Conditions on your registration and whether patients and the public interest would be adequately protected by doing so. The panel was of the mind that in this case, Conditions would be unworkable and irrelevant to the matters before it. Therefore the panel does not consider Conditions to be the correct or appropriate sanction in your case. 17. The panel looked carefully at the circumstances of your case. Your conviction was the result of an isolated incident which has not been repeated and you have shown remorse and insight. However, the seriousness of the offence does require a message to be sent to you, the public and the profession. Having considered paragraphs 69 and 75 of the ISG, the panel is satisfied that the serious nature of your conviction can only be marked by a period of Suspension to send a clear message to both the public and the profession that this behaviour is unacceptable. Although no damage or harm was caused by you on the night in question, driving while under the influence of alcohol always has the potential to cause serious harm to the driver or others. 18. The panel considers it necessary and proportionate to impose Suspension for a period of two months. This length of time reflects the seriousness of your conviction while sending a clear message to the public and the profession that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. At the same time, it properly balances and takes into account the insight and remorse you have shown, the mitigation in the form of your positive testimonials and the low likelihood of repetition. It is clear that you are a skilled and valued surgeon who is held in high regard by patients, colleagues and others. 19. The panel does not consider it necessary to order a review hearing. 20. The effect of this direction is that unless you exercise your right of appeal, this decision will take effect 28 days from when written notice of this determination is deemed to have been served upon you. A note explaining your right of appeal will be provided to you. Determination on Immediate Order Mr Shergill: 7

1. Having determined that your name be suspended from the medical register for a period of two months, the panel has now considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Medical Act 1983, as amended, whether to impose an immediate order on your registration. 2. Ms Oldfield submitted that due to concerns about the public interest it is necessary to impose an immediate order on your registration. 3. Mr Jenkins submitted that since a sanction of two months Suspension has been ordered, an immediate order would extend this to three months. He submitted that you are not a danger to the public or patients and that the 28 day appeal period would allow you and the Hospital to rearrange your commitments. He opposed Ms Oldfield s submission. 4. The panel notes there are no concerns over your clinical practice or issues of patient safety and it considers that the public interest aspects of the case have been fully addressed by its finding of impairment and the period of suspension imposed. In the circumstances, the panel has determined that an immediate order is not required in the public interest and would be disproportionate. 5. The direction for Suspension, as already announced, will take effect 28 days from the date upon which written notice of this decision is deemed to have been served upon you, unless you lodge an appeal in the interim. 6. That concludes this case. Confirmed Date 30 January 2015 Ms Gill Mullen, Chair 8