M appealed against the decision of a fitness to practise panel to erase him from the medical register on the basis that this was disproportionate. Following a string of other acts of dishonesty, he was convicted of knowingly possessing a false identity document and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. In light of this and his previous conduct, the panel considered M’s fitness to practise and concluded that it was impaired by his misconduct and his conviction. M was immediately suspended and subsequently erased from the medical register.

At first glance it seemed that the sanction of erasure was disproportionate. However, the court had a limited scope of review and previous cases were applied. The points raised by M on appeal had all been before the panel on mitigation and, where the standing of a profession was in issue, matters of mitigation carried little weight. M had not raised any errors of approach in accordance with established legal principles. Therefore, there was no basis on which the appeal could succeed.

Mvenge v General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 3529 (Admin)