Skip to main content

Insight article

August 24, 2020

Should sanctions for dishonesty be harmonised?

Reading the recent Judgment of Mr Justice Julian Knowles in Simawi v General Medical Council provokes thought, not for the first time, about the apparent disparity between sanctions imposed for dishonesty within healthcare and legal services.

The disparity between sanctions

Healthcare servicesLegal services
A doctor is less likely to be erased from the register for misconduct involving dishonesty.A lawyer found to have been dishonest will be struck off, save for in ‘exceptional circumstances’ which are not clearly defined.
The focus is on how doctors can be rehabilitated and remediated, which permits them to return to their profession after periods of suspension relatively smoothly.Once struck off for dishonesty, it is unlikely that a lawyer will be readmitted to their profession.

This disparity crosses professions and can also be spotted in cases of misconduct in financial services.

The case

Dr Simawi appealed against the sanction of nine months suspension imposed by a Tribunal for two findings of dishonesty. The maximum period of suspension permitted by statute is 12 months.

Dr Simawi did not dispute the Tribunal’s findings of fact or misconduct, or that his fitness to practise was impaired. He simply argued that the suspension was too long. The General Medical Council had sought the sanction of Dr Simawi’s erasure from the medical register, equivalent to being struck off as a solicitor.

The findings of dishonesty related to:

  • the creation and submission of a conference attendance application; the conference did not exist, and
  • the misreport and amendment of a document by Dr Simawi to achieve a start date for employment convenient to him.

The Tribunal referred to the seminal 1994 decision of Bolton v Law Society. The main reason for imposing sanctions was to protect the public, not to punish or discipline doctors, even though sanctions may have a punitive effect. Proportionality required Dr Simawi’s interests to be balanced with the public interest.

Mr Justice Knowles expressed initial concern that the suspension was ‘excessive and disproportionate’. Many charges were made against Dr Simawi, but few were proven. The Tribunal accepted the strong mitigation on Dr Simawi’s behalf. The Judge ultimately decided that the length of the suspension was proportionate and said:

‘Reading the Tribunal’s findings as a whole, it was clearly of the view that [Dr Simawi] had further work to do in order to gain full insight into his behaviour and to remediate it, and the period of suspension had to be sufficient to allow that work to be completed and to be presented at a review hearing.’

Further, the Tribunal formed its decision by referencing its experience, and the work required by Dr Simawi would ensure that the public and the profession were fully protected. Mr Justice Knowles, therefore, dismissed Dr Simawi’s appeal. He accepted that the suspension would impact the doctor’s career and, to that extent, represented a punishment.

Interesting points

Solicitors, often juniors within their firms, are usually struck off for similar misconduct to that found proved against Dr Simawi. There have been several high-profile cases on the point, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority v James and Others.

Solicitors must be capable of being ‘trusted to the ends of the earth’ as per Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Bolton v Law Society. This is a high standard—a standard that dates as far back as 1993. The world of regulation in 2020 is a different, unrecognisable place. All professions have faced new challenges working under demanding conditions during the pandemic. Those circumstances will result in regulatory issues for regulators to grapple with over the two years. We now know much more about the mental health issues, often undiagnosed, arising from stress and anxiety in the workplace. This knowledge may be directly relevant to the causes of uncharacteristic misconduct leading to investigation and disciplinary proceedings by the regulator.

The cost to the country of training doctors is high, and the pandemic has emphasised the need for more trained medical professionals. This explains, in part, the emphasis placed on remediation and rehabilitation in cases involving doctors. However, there is scope for increased weight to be given to the value of rehabilitation and remediation when considering sanction in cases involving other professions.

The time has now come to review sanctions for dishonesty across professions, to reflect society’s greater understanding of mental health issues, the cost of training professionals whether they work in financial services, healthcare, legal services, etc., to achieve greater consistency, and to allow for more nuanced outcomes.

Susan Humble is a regulatory partner at RIAA Barker Gillette with an acute understanding of regulators and disciplinary boards. Susan helps professionals to pre-empt regulatory intervention and to navigate investigations. Contact Susan today.

Note: This is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Strategic lifetime gifting
    How to minimise your IHT liability during your lifetime.


    Read more
  • Navigating directors’ duties
    Legal responsibilities and risks for UK company directors


    Read more
  • Preparing a business-lasting power of attorney
    In this article, private client solicitor Herman Cheung of West End law firm RIAA Barker Gillette (UK) considers the advantages, needs and practical examples of creating a bu


    Read more
  • Can you make a WhatsApp will?
    Key legal requirements and future outlook.


    Read more
  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Michael, May 2025
    “Very pleased with the services provided by Charlotte Barbaroussis. Particularly found her quick and effective to reply to any queries.”

  • Malcolm & Sheila Blackmore, May 2025
    “My wife and I engaged RIAA Barker Gillette to prepare our wills and LPOA’s. James McMullan and Charlotte Barbaroussis were the epitome of professionalism – responding quickly, talking us through the legalese, clearly answering any

  • Ian, April 2025
    “Martin and his team at Barker Gillette acted for us in our purchase and sale of property. The chain was lengthy and elements of the work became complex. Martin was tenacious and resolved to answer our queries as they arose. He handled all aspe

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

Read more
Send this to a friend