Medical professionals' claim of racial discrimination in court is turned down
In a ruling handed down in August 2025, the High Court in London dismissed an appeal by two general practitioners, Dr Belinda Agoe and Dr Kausar Ali, who alleged that their referral to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) was racially discriminatory.
The doctors, who practiced as GP partners at the Staunton Group Practice in Wood Green, London, had appealed to the High Court under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, advancing eight grounds grouped under three broad headings: alleged race discrimination, errors in factual findings, and the imposition of sanctions.
The General Medical Council (GMC) had brought disciplinary proceedings against both doctors, with the MPTS subsequently finding that their fitness to practise was impaired. The central thrust of the race discrimination challenge was that the GMC had acted unlawfully by pursuing proceedings against the appellants but not against Dr Thomas Strommer, a white colleague who had also worked at the practice on 1 November 2018.
However, the court found no error in the MPTS's conclusion that the GMC was unaware of Dr Strommer's race at the time decisions were made. Furthermore, the judge found no material error in the MPTS's application of the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010.
The judge, Mrs Justice Farbey, also dismissed the grounds of appeal relating to the sanctions imposed, holding that the tribunal had provided "clear and cogent" reasons for its conclusion that suspension orders were appropriate. The appellants, Dr Agoe and Dr Ali, were suspended for three months and two months, respectively.
The court also rejected arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that their suspensions from the medical register amounted to an abuse of process. The judge concluded that "suspension rather than erasure may be considered generous."
The case, Agoe and Ali (appellants) v General Medical Council (respondent), was represented by Oluwaseyi Ojo of Taylor Wood Solicitors for the appellants and Rory Dunlop KC of 39 Essex Chambers for the respondent directly.
It is important to note that the Staunton Group Practice was subject to a suspension of its registration in May 2018, and when caretaker organization Federated4Health was set to take over on 1 November 2018, the incumbents allegedly obstructed the handover. The appellants had previously brought two unsuccessful claims for judicial review of the GMC's conduct and the MPTS's refusal to stay the proceedings.
This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the rigorous application of the law in cases involving allegations of professional misconduct. It serves as a reminder that decisions made by regulatory bodies such as the GMC and the MPTS must be based on evidence and the principles of natural justice, regardless of the ethnicity or background of the individuals involved.
Politics in the medical profession was on the agenda in 2025, as the High Court in London ruled on an appeal by Dr Belinda Agoe and Dr Kausar Ali, who claimed their referral to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) was racially discriminatory. The ruling also had implications for crime and justice, as it highlighted the importance of fairness and adherence to the law in cases of professional misconduct, regardless of the ethnicity of the individuals involved.
