Masood v GMC [2024] CSIH 24: MPT’s findings of domestic abuse upheld despite adverse findings as to complainant’s credibility

The Court of Session has again declined to interfere with the findings of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) and its sanction of erasure. 

The appellant, Dr Masood, was subject to GMC fitness to practise proceedings arising from allegations that he had emotionally, physically and sexually abused his former wife (“Ms A”). Thereafter it was alleged he attempted to interfere with the fitness to practise process by instructing lawyers to send her a threatening and intimidating letter.

Most of the allegations before the MPT, including all those of a sexual nature, were not proved. The MPT made several credibility findings against Ms A, including that she was unwilling to make obvious and necessary concessions when faced with documents that challenged her account, and she tended to exaggerate. Indeed, in respect of unproven allegations of physical abuse, including an attempt to suffocate Ms A with a scarf, the MPT found that Ms A was not an entirely reliable witness and tended to embellish her accounts of her injuries. Her account as to the severity of her injuries on one occasion was undermined by video evidence. Nonetheless, the MPT found proved a number of particulars, ranging from low-level emotional abuse to more serious allegations of physical abuse, together with the allegation of interference. These resulted in erasure.

Dr Masood appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 arguing – inter alia – that the MPT’s findings as to the proved allegations were perverse, in large part because it had otherwise rejected significant parts of Ms A’s evidence. It was submitted by the appellant that in circumstances where over 92% of the allegations had been rejected due to inconsistencies in Ms A’s account, it was incumbent on the MPT to explain why it felt able to accept her evidence in respect of the proved allegations.

Rejecting this argument, the court found that the MPT was entitled to accept the evidence of Ms A on certain issues and reject it in other respects. It concluded that there was nothing unusual, inconsistent or notable in such an approach which, contrary to the appellant’s complaint, was illustrative of a careful, considered approach.  

As to sanction, the court found that the MPT had approached it in an appropriately graduated way and erasure was open to it having regard to the severity of the allegations.

Having found that there was no basis upon which they could justifiably interfere with the MPT’s findings, the court observed that the appellant had essentially invited it to re-open the findings of the Tribunal where they could only correct egregious errors of fact or law. What they could not do was simply remake the decision according to its own views of the case.

Such a deferential approach is consistent with the reluctance repeatedly displayed by the High Court to interfere with the MPT’s decisions on matters of weight and credibility. 

Neelam Gomersall