The Court of Appeal’s judgment in General Medical Council v Gilbert & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 53 gives clear guidance on how MPTS tribunals should approach the GMC’s Sanctions Guidance, with particular emphasis on how insight and remediation should be evaluated in fitness to practise cases involving non‑clinical misconduct. The decision also confirms that these principles apply broadly across UK healthcare regulators, not only the MPTS.
Background to the case
Dr Gilbert, a consultant surgeon at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, faced allegations spanning 2009–2022, including sexualised behaviour towards junior colleagues and racist remarks in clinical settings. The MPTS found most allegations proved and imposed an eight‑month suspension, concluding that the misconduct was serious but not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and that Dr Gilbert had demonstrated insight and remediation.
The GMC and PSA appealed, arguing that only erasure could maintain public confidence. The High Court increased the suspension to 12 months but rejected erasure. Both regulators appealed again, and the Court of Appeal dismissed those appeals, confirming that the MPTS had applied the correct legal framework and that its sanction was within the reasonable range of outcomes.
How the Court expects tribunals to assess insight and remediation
The Court of Appeal held that tribunals must make a genuine evaluative judgment about a doctor’s insight and remediation, rather than treating the Sanctions Guidance as a checklist or a set of automatic triggers. The Court “firmly deprecated” any score‑sheet approach, stressing that the Guidance is intended to structure reasoning, not dictate outcomes.
Tribunals must therefore consider:
-
What the doctor has done to understand the misconduct
Insight must be evidenced through reflection, acceptance of wrongdoing, and understanding of its impact. -
What steps have been taken to remediate behaviour
This includes training, supervision, behavioural change, and steps to prevent recurrence. -
Whether remediation is credible and sustained
The tribunal must assess whether the doctor’s actions demonstrate genuine change, not superficial compliance. -
How insight and remediation affect current and future risk
Even in serious non‑clinical misconduct cases, strong evidence of remediation can reduce risk to a level where suspension—not erasure—adequately protects the public.
In Dr Gilbert’s case, the MPTS found that although the misconduct was serious, it was remediable, and that he had taken “significant steps” to address his behaviour. The Court of Appeal accepted that this evaluative assessment was rational and within the tribunal’s discretion.
Why insight and remediation matter in non‑clinical misconduct
The allegations against Dr Gilbert included sexually motivated comments, unwanted physical contact, and racist remarks over a long period. These behaviours are recognised in the Sanctions Guidance as serious aggravating factors. However, the Court emphasised that seriousness alone does not predetermine sanction.
Instead, tribunals must ask:
- Has the doctor demonstrated meaningful insight into why the behaviour was wrong?
- Is there evidence of genuine behavioural change?
- Does the remediation reduce the risk of repetition to an acceptable level?
- Can public confidence be maintained without erasure?
The Court confirmed that where insight and remediation are strong, suspension can be a proportionate sanction, even in cases involving sexual or discriminatory misconduct.
The evaluative nature of sanction decisions
A central theme of the judgment is that sanction decisions are inherently evaluative. The Court warned the GMC and PSA against appealing decisions that simply reflect a different view of the public interest, reiterating that appellate courts should intervene only where a tribunal’s decision is wrong, not merely “lenient”.
This reinforces that:
- Tribunals are best placed to assess insight and remediation.
- Regulators cannot treat certain categories of misconduct as automatically requiring erasure.
- The Sanctions Guidance must be applied flexibly and contextually.
Application beyond the MPTS
Although the case concerns the GMC and MPTS, the Court’s reasoning reflects general regulatory law principles. Other UK healthcare regulators—such as the NMC, HCPC, GPhC and GDC—also rely on structured guidance and risk‑based approaches. The Court’s insistence on holistic evaluation, proportionality, and respect for tribunal discretion therefore applies across the wider fitness to practise landscape.
Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.