Case Number: 11829


Heard at:




Friday 12th August 2005





Mr T Jones



Dr S Shama

Professional Member


Mr C Barnes













(GMC No: 4255440)














The Appeal


1.         Dr S Sinha (“the Appellant”) appeals the decision of the South Leeds Primary Care Trust (“the PCT”) of 29th April 2005 to remove the Appellant’s name from the medical performers list in relation to suitability  in pursuance of Regulations 4 (3) (f) and 9 (4) of The National Health Service (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004. Other matters were to be put, in relation to other information required from a practitioner wishing to maintain their name on the list; these matters, thought to be of lesser significance by the PCT, were not pursued and notice given to the FHSAA and Appellant earlier. The PCT wished to pursue only one remaining matter, in that, the Appellant as he is obliged to do in order to remain on the list, has failed to submit an Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate.


The Burden and Standard of Proof


2.         The burden of proof is with the Appellant, the usual civil standard; the balance of probabilities applies.




3.         The Appellant was recorded as a medical practitioner on the PCT’s list. The 2004 regulations required him to demonstrate he had completed and enhanced criminal record disclosure application. The Appellant was written to by the PCT on three occasions in this regard between November 2004 and February 2005, without response. The PCT made enquiries of the General Medical Council to see if they had other information concerning the Appellants whereabouts. A minor difference in the spelling of a street name was noted, but the house number and post code were the same. All correspondence sent earlier by post and recorded delivery had not been returned to the PCT. The PCT, concerned that it should not act unfairly or precipitately, also consulted generally with the Local Medical Committee (LMC); and, later took advice from the National Clinical Assessment Authority (NCAA). The PCT concluded, for want of any response from the Appellant that notice of the PCT’s intention to remove the Appellant from the Performers list was to be given to the Appellant. Notice was given to the Appellant, no response was forthcoming. Thereafter, a decision to remove the Appellants name from the list was made as noted above. 


4.         The Appellant in a brief letter to the FHSAA, in the most general of terms, asked for the matter to be reviewed. This was treated as a notice of appeal, acknowledged and a hearing date fixed. The Appellant was requested to give details his appeal in advance of the hearing, in accordance with procedure rules. He failed to do so. The PCT on 10th June 2005 gave notice of only wishing to proceed on the one matter as noted above in paragraph one. The Appellant was given notice of the same by the FHSAA. He was again requested to give details of his appeal; and, if he intended to appear or be represented. He was reminded of the wish of the Tribunal to have information from him, so as to have a fair, effectively listed hearing; and, if the appeal was not being pursued by him, of a wish to save further public funds being expended. The Appellant did not respond or attend the hearing.


The Hearing of the Appeal


5.         The appeal was heard at Harrogate on 12th August 2005. The Appellant did not attend the hearing. We were satisfied he was given due notice of the hearing.  Having allowed further time for him to attend on the day, we decided to proceed in his absence. Dr Riley appeared for the PCT. A note of the hearing is set out in the Record of Proceedings. This together with the information comprised in the bundle of papers, has been taken fully into account by us. 


Our Conclusions


6.         It is clear that the Appellant has failed to address, at all, or in any meaningful manner, the subject matter of his appeal. Applying the appropriate standard, we find for the PCT. The Appellant has failed to engaged with the PCT; even then the PCT have said that should the Appellant apply to re-join any performers list, the problem of CRB disclosure could be resolved with his co-operation. The Appellant’s name has, we find, been properly removed from the Practitioner List for the reasons given by the PCT, to which we for like reasons subscribe. The PCT gave proper notice to the Appellant on more than one occasion; and, prudently consulted with the LMC and NCAA. The PCT has, we find, acted properly and proportionately.




Appeal dismissed.



Finally, in accordance with Rule 42 (5) of the Rules we hereby notify that a party to these proceedings can appeal this decision under Sec 11 Tribunals & Inquiries Act 1992 by lodging notice of appeal in the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL within 14 days from the date of this decision.







Mr T Jones, Chairman

Harrogate, 12th August 2005