Sexual misconduct, remediation and fitness to practise: lessons from Sadiq v GMC

The recent High Court decision in Sadiq v The General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 3062 (Admin) provides important guidance for doctors on how allegations of sexual misconduct are treated in fitness to practise proceedings. The case illustrates the limited role remediation can play when misconduct undermines public trust in the profession.

The background to the case involved findings by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) that the Appellant’s conduct amounted to serious sexual misconduct. The Tribunal concluded that this behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and ordered erasure. The Appellant appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had failed to give sufficient weight to evidence of remediation and that a lesser sanction should have been imposed.

In dismissing the appeal, Ms Justice Obi DBE emphasised the distinction between poor clinical performance and sexual misconduct. At paragraph 87 of her judgment, she noted that sexual misconduct “which impacts on the reputation of the profession undermines public trust in the profession. It is accordingly more difficult to remediate than poor clinical performance, and mitigation is afforded limited weight.” This statement reflects the consistent position in GMC guidance and the MPTS Sanctions Guidance: remediation evidence, while relevant, cannot outweigh the gravity of misconduct that strikes at the heart of professional integrity.

The GMC’s Good medical practice makes clear that doctors must never use their professional position to pursue sexual or improper relationships. Breaches of sexual boundaries are treated as serious misconduct because they compromise patient safety and erode public confidence. The MPTS Sanctions Guidance reinforces this by identifying sexual misconduct as behaviour likely to lead to erasure, with tribunals directed to give limited weight to mitigation or remediation.

↓ Continued below ↓

Unique and practical courses focusing on impairment, reflection, insight, and remediation at highly competitive prices.

For doctors, the key lesson is that remediation has a different role depending on the nature of the concern. Where clinical performance is in issue, remediation through training, supervision or reflection can carry significant weight. In contrast, sexual misconduct is exceptionally difficult to remediate. Even genuine insight and evidence of changed behaviour may not prevent erasure if the misconduct is grave.

That said, sexual misconduct is not automatically fatal to a doctor’s career. Case law and guidance show that insight and remediation can still have a positive bearing on sanctions. Evidence of reflection, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and steps taken to address behaviour may demonstrate reduced risk of repetition. In borderline cases, such evidence can influence whether suspension rather than erasure is imposed, or affect the length of suspension. Tribunals may also record remediation efforts to recognise attempts at reform, even where erasure is ultimately ordered.

Doctors facing fitness to practise allegations should therefore prioritise developing genuine insight and undertaking structured remediation. Specialist programmes such as Insight Works Complete are designed to support doctors in evidencing reflection, remediation and behavioural change. These services can provide practical tools, training and documentation that demonstrate to tribunals a commitment to professional integrity and reduced risk of repetition. While remediation cannot erase the seriousness of sexual misconduct, engaging with structured programmes can show regulators that a doctor is taking responsibility and actively working to address concerns.

This case underscores the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and recognising that sexual misconduct is treated as fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. While the consistent position of the GMC and MPTS is that sexual misconduct is exceptionally difficult to remediate and usually leads to erasure, evidence of insight and remediation can still have a positive bearing on sanctions and demonstrate commitment to professional integrity.

When things go wrong, we are here when you need us

Kings View Chambers has over 30 years’ combined experience representing heath and care professionals at all levels.  We are a leading fitness to practise defence chambers that have a proud record of consistently achieving excellent outcomes for our clients.

Kings View Chambers are rated excellent by its clients. As public access barristers, you can instruct us directly without having the additional expense of hiring a solicitor.

It is a well-established fact that healthcare professionals who seek legal advice and representation at an early stage in any fitness to practise process, generally, receive better outcomes and lesser sanctions, if any.  We can advise on the right strategy to take and represent you before a fitness to practise hearing.

Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.