While the second complaint was not proceeded with by the GMC the historical allegation was. In order to do so the GMC had to invoke the waiver to the five year limitation rule placed on complaints. This could only be done \u201cin the public interest\u2026in the exceptional circumstances of the case\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Registrar found:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201ctaking all the above matters into consideration it is clear to me, given the nature and gravity of the alleged events which are alleged to have taken place over a significant period of time, that there is a public interest in this allegation being investigated by the GMC, that public interest being an order to promote public safety and maintain public confidence in the medical profession. That would have been my view even had this been the only allegation against D. However, this is not the only such allegation against D and the fact that a similar allegation has now been made to the GMC strengthens my belief that it is in the public interest in exceptional circumstances of the case for the five year rule to be waived in order that an investigation into the complaint regarding D alleging inappropriate touching of step-daughter (X) may be carried out by the GMC\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It was submitted on behalf of D that the Assistant Registrar\u2019s reasoning was flawed because the Assistant Registrar had failed properly to understand or apply the guidance criteria in relation to \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d. Counsel for the GMC submitted that the decision was lawful and rational and took into account the relevant considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was the decision of the Court that the Assistant Registrar\u2019s decision to waive the \u2018five-year rule\u2019 was \u201cfundamentally flawed\u201d<\/em> [29]. It was held that;<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was the judgment of the Court that for each of these three reasons the decision of the Assistant Registrar was \u201cplainly wrong and must be quashed\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact it was held by the Court that the present case represented a \u201cparadigm case\u201d<\/em> for the application of the \u2018five year rule\u2019, involving 21 year old allegations which had been thoroughly investigated by the authorities at the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Please note:<\/strong>\u00a0This article was originally published on our previous website and is provided for general information purposes only. While it reflects the legal position at the time of writing, the law may have changed since publication. For up-to-date advice tailored to your circumstances, please contact our team.)<\/em>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9534","knowledge-base","type-knowledge-base","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\n