Dr Sarah Barbara Myhill v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 474 (Admin)
Summary
Dr. Myhill, an experienced doctor, faced charges from the GMC for promoting unlicensed treatments for COVID-19, which allegedly risked patient safety. The Original Tribunal found her guilty of misconduct and impaired fitness to practice, resulting in a nine-month suspension.
A subsequent Review Tribunal extended her suspension for another 12 months, citing her lack of insight and remediation.
Dr. Myhill sought to introduce fresh evidence, arguing it would demonstrate her views were supported by a responsible body of medical opinion (Bolam defence). The evidence included witness statements, publications, and articles.
The court applied the Ladd v Marshall test for fresh evidence, which requires showing that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would probably influence the result, and is credible. The court found that Dr. Myhill’s evidence did not meet these criteria.
Conclusion: The application to admit fresh evidence was refused. The court emphasised the principle of finality in litigation and the importance of adhering to procedural rules for appeals.
The court will proceed with the appeal based on the existing material from the Review Tribunal.
A subsequent Review Tribunal extended her suspension for another 12 months, citing her lack of insight and remediation.
Dr. Myhill sought to introduce fresh evidence, arguing it would demonstrate her views were supported by a responsible body of medical opinion (Bolam defence). The evidence included witness statements, publications, and articles.
The court applied the Ladd v Marshall test for fresh evidence, which requires showing that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would probably influence the result, and is credible. The court found that Dr. Myhill’s evidence did not meet these criteria.
Conclusion: The application to admit fresh evidence was refused. The court emphasised the principle of finality in litigation and the importance of adhering to procedural rules for appeals.
The court will proceed with the appeal based on the existing material from the Review Tribunal.