Evan Wright and Valentina Oldham represented an eminent doctor of Oncology, charged by the GMC of dishonesty in relation to the qualification he publicised on websites and in applications for research grants. The doctor was practicing in several countries and depended upon his reputation to support various academic projects.

The Tribunal considered whether the doctor had been dishonest in his belief and representations. They also considered whether the doctor had, in fact, obtained the qualification. They decided that although he had not obtained the qualification, they understood why the doctor thought the qualification had been obtained and why the administrative requirements had not been fully completed. They decided the doctor had not been dishonest and found that his practice was not impaired. However, the Tribunal decided that the doctor had breached the required standards of Good Medical Practice. In this case, paragraph 71 of Good Medical Practice was particularly relevant. Paragraphs 71 states:

‘You must be honest and trustworthy when writing reports, and when completing or signing forms, reports and other documents. You must make sure that any documents you write or sign are not false or misleading. You must take reasonable steps to check the information is correct…’ 

Whilst the failing in itself was not so serious as to require any restriction on his registration, the Tribunal found it necessary in response to issue a formal warning. A finding of dishonesty would have had a devastating impact on the doctor’s career and reputation. Jason Macadam of Exchange Chambers was instructed in the matter, which culminated in a trial of five days.