Dr Graham Wheatley vs General Medical Council

Introduction

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Dr Graham Wheatley against a determination by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) that found his fitness to practise was impaired due to inappropriate behaviour. The case, heard under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, revolved around an incident at the Tri-Service Trainers Conference in November 2021, where Dr Wheatley was accused of inappropriate conduct towards a colleague, referred to as Ms A.

Background

Dr Wheatley, a general practitioner and former Army officer, attended the Tri-Service Trainers Conference, a professional development event for medical services within the Armed Services. The incident in question occurred during a social gathering after a formal dinner. Dr Wheatley was accused of placing his arm around Ms A's waist and touching her bottom, actions deemed sexually motivated and constituting sexual harassment under the Equality Act.

Grounds of Appeal

Dr Wheatley challenged the MPT's findings on two grounds: that the conclusions were beyond the scope of a reasonable tribunal and were not supported by adequate reasoning. He argued that inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the General Medical Council (GMC) should have led to an acquittal. He also contended that the MPT's reasoning was flawed, especially given his acquittal on a separate allegation of touching Ms A's breast, which was deemed accidental.

Evidence and Testimonies

The court reviewed testimonies from several witnesses, including Ms A, Dr Dudley Graham, and Dr Katrina Peebles. Ms A described the unwanted attention and inappropriate touching by Dr Wheatley, while Dr Graham and Dr Peebles corroborated her account, noting Dr Wheatley's inebriated state and the inappropriate nature of his actions. Dr Wheatley, on the other hand, claimed any contact was accidental, attributing it to his drunkenness and lack of balance.

Legal Framework

The appeal was considered under the framework established by section 40 of the Medical Act, which allows for a rehearing but requires deference to the MPT's findings unless they are plainly wrong. The court emphasised the importance of the MPT's role as the primary fact-finder, especially in cases involving witness credibility and conflicting testimonies.

Court's Analysis

Mrs Justice Foster, presiding over the appeal, found no error in the MPT's factual findings or reasoning. The court noted that while there were minor inconsistencies in witness accounts, they did not undermine the credibility of the central allegations. The court also highlighted the MPT's careful consideration of the evidence, including Dr Wheatley's inconsistent statements and attempts to shift blame onto Ms A.

Conclusion

The High Court upheld the MPT's decision, concluding that Dr Wheatley's actions were deliberate and sexually motivated, justifying the six-week suspension. The court acknowledged the lower end of gravity for the misconduct but emphasised the importance of maintaining professional standards and protecting colleagues from harassment.

Implications

This case underscores the importance of professional conduct and the rigorous standards to which medical practitioners are held. It also highlights the challenges in appealing factual findings, particularly in cases involving witness credibility and sensitive allegations.

Learn More

For more information on medical negligence, see BeCivil's guide to Medical Negligence.