Eight month suspension for surgeon who sexually harassed colleagues “emboldens perpetrators,” say victims; High Court extends suspension to 12 months
Dear Editor
In September 2024, I suggested that this case should be appealed to the High Court [1]. In fact, it was appealed and the High Court handed down its judgment on 3rd April this year [2].
In my response, among other things, in relation to rejection of alleged racial harassment, I said, “it appears, the MPT has failed to give sufficient, logically sustainable reasons to support such conclusion” [1]. This issue was taken pursued on appeal and the High Court concluded (58):
“I accept Mr. Hare KC's submission. The Tribunal's definition of harassment is muddled and yet the charge was straightforward: that the comment made to Ms I about a patient during an organ retrieval procedure "look at all that fat, this is what happens when you eat chapatti" constituted harassment (related to race) as defined in section 26(1) of the EA, in that Mr. Gilbert engaged in unwanted conduct related to race, which had the effect of creating a degrading or offensive environment for Ms I.” [2].
The outcome on appeal is a “suspension of 12 months” (145)[2] rather than 8 months which the MPTS imposed initially. Whether extending the suspension by 4 months amounts to a proportionate level of justice remains arguable.
Rapid Response:
Eight month suspension for surgeon who sexually harassed colleagues “emboldens perpetrators,” say victims; High Court extends suspension to 12 months
Dear Editor
In September 2024, I suggested that this case should be appealed to the High Court [1]. In fact, it was appealed and the High Court handed down its judgment on 3rd April this year [2].
In my response, among other things, in relation to rejection of alleged racial harassment, I said, “it appears, the MPT has failed to give sufficient, logically sustainable reasons to support such conclusion” [1]. This issue was taken pursued on appeal and the High Court concluded (58):
“I accept Mr. Hare KC's submission. The Tribunal's definition of harassment is muddled and yet the charge was straightforward: that the comment made to Ms I about a patient during an organ retrieval procedure "look at all that fat, this is what happens when you eat chapatti" constituted harassment (related to race) as defined in section 26(1) of the EA, in that Mr. Gilbert engaged in unwanted conduct related to race, which had the effect of creating a degrading or offensive environment for Ms I.” [2].
The outcome on appeal is a “suspension of 12 months” (145)[2] rather than 8 months which the MPTS imposed initially. Whether extending the suspension by 4 months amounts to a proportionate level of justice remains arguable.
References
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1881/rr-3
[2] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/802.html
Competing interests: No competing interests