Private Eye

Tour Dates




Staying Alive




Press Info

Interview Feature

Press Quotes

Tour Reviews



Log in

December 11, 2013

How the GMC reviews a decision not to investigate
Filed under: Private Eye — Dr. Phil @ 8:49 am

Dear Dr Hammond and Mr Bousfield


Thank you for your emails of 2 and 6 December.


As you know your request for a review of our decision to close your complaint about Dr Hakin has been passed to the Rule 12 team for consideration.


I should explain that we have the power to review investigation decisions under Rule 12 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules. This empowers the Registrar, or an Assistant Registrar through delegated authority, to review all or part of certain specified decisions.


There are two alternative grounds for a review. Firstly if the Registrar has reason to believe that the original decision “may be materially flawed (for any reason) wholly or partly”. Secondly if he has reason to believe that there is new information which may have led, wholly or partly, to a different decision.


That said, even if the Registrar has reason to believe that a decision taken may be materially flawed and/or that there is new information which may have led to a different decision, a review can only be undertaken if the Registrar is also of the view that a review is necessary for the protection of the public; necessary for the prevention of injustice to the practitioner; or otherwise necessary in the public interest.


We will consider all the information that you have provided us to date to determine if there are grounds for us to formally review the decision. I should advise you that this process takes some time but please be assured that we will write to you as soon as a decision has been reached.


Yours sincerely


John Barnard

Rule 12 Investigation Manager

General Medical Council

Regent’s Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN