Doctor facing 'sexual touching and voyerism' allegations fails in bid to overturn suspension

A doctor facing allegations from 11 patients about his alleged “sexual touching” and “voyeurism” has failed in a bid to overturn an order suspending him from working.

The GP, who has been named V by a Court of Session judge, was made the subject of a 15-month-long interim suspension order in August this year.

A tribunal of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Services ordered the imposition of the restriction because of claims about the medic’s behaviour.

A legal opinion issued by judge Lady Tait on Friday states that the allegations facing V relate to a period from 2007 to 2013 and “importantly occurred in a clinical setting.”

The opinion states that the claims are “sexual in nature and comprise touching of genitalia, penetrative examinations and voyeurism.”

Medical records belonging to the complainers allegedly do not note the “precise patient contact”.

However, lawyers for V raised proceedings at Scotland’s highest civil court earlier this year to argue that the order imposed on their client was unlawful.

They argued that the first V received notice of the tribunal was the day prior to the hearing.

His legal team asked the tribunal to postpone the hearing, but this request was refused, which prompted V’s representative to withdraw. The tribunal then proceeded in the absence of V and his legal team.

Lawyers for V argued that the procedure adopted by the tribunal was unfair to their client and was unlawful.

The tribunal concluded that it made all reasonable efforts to contact V and that the nature of the allegations facing him were so serious that it was in the public interest to proceed.

In the judgment published on Friday, Lady Tait agreed that the tribunal acted lawfully in imposing the order.

She wrote: “I am mindful that interim suspension has a direct impact on the petitioner’s right to earn a living.

“However, I require to weigh that against the gravity and number of allegations over a sustained period; the apparent support.

“The allegations are not only of sexual touching but of voyeurism.

“Accordingly, in the circumstances, suspension is the least intrusive means.”

The judgment tells of the nature of the allegations being made against V. The judgment states the claims are “wide-ranging allegations from multiple complainants of ‘sexual abuse’”.

The allegations include intimate examination of male private parts, including “comparing their size to a string of plastic balls”.

Another claim made against V includes “unasked for prostate examinations on men under 30 years old” and “inviting male patients to strip naked and to do star jumps and mobility exercises” while V watched from behind.

These examinations were allegedly not recorded in medical records.

The judgment tells of how V denies the allegations.

The judgment also tells of how, in 2023, V was made subject to proceedings in which there was no “finding of misconduct and, consequently, no finding of impairment of his fitness to practise.”

The judgment tells of how this relates to claims in which four patients were not offered a chaperone. The judgment states that there was “no finding that there was any sexual motivation for any of these matters.

The court also heard that on November 20, 2020, V had been made subject to an interim conditions of practice order” which required him that “except in life-threatening emergencies”, he “must not carry out face-to-face consultations without a chaperone present.”

An allegation was made that the petitioner had not complied with that condition.

At a hearing in October 2024, the GMC accepted that a chaperone was present during the examination in question.

The allegation, which was ultimately upheld, was that the patient was not aware of the chaperone observing and had not provided their consent.

His legal team argued that the tribunal had presented an inaccurate and exaggerated account of his V’s past, including an incorrect claim that he had previously breached conditions.

They argued that the allegations were old, poorly detailed, and could safely be managed through practice conditions such as remote consultations or the use of chaperones.

But Lady Tait concluded that the order was imposed correctly.

She wrote: “This court’s task is not to determine whether the making of the order by the IOT (Interim Order Tribunal) was legally justified, but rather to decide for itself whether the statutory test for [making] the order has been met

“For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the test has been met. My decision is not a narrow one which requires to be bolstered by the decision of the IOT.

“Mindful of the court’s task, I decline to grant the declarator sought.

“I am satisfied that an interim suspension order of 15 months is proportionate as a precautionary measure to protect the public from the apprehended risk and in the public interest.”