Alexander

FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL 8 TO 9 DECEMBER 2011 7th Floor, St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ Name of Respondent Doctor: Registered Qualifications: Area of Registered Address: Reference Number: Type of Case: Panel Members: Dr Murdo ALEXANDER MB ChB 1982 University of Dundee Clwyd 2774343 Review case of impairment by reason of: misconduct XXX Mrs F Barnett (Lay) Chairman DrI Aon (Medical) Mrs J Turner (Lay) Mr N Baldock Dr M Gopfert Miss O Pennelle

Legal Assessor: Specialist X Adviser Secretary to the Panel:

Representation: GMC: Ms Elizabeth Dudley-Jones, Counsel, instructed by GMC Legal, represented the Council. Doctor: Dr Alexander was not present and not represented. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC Prior to the commencement of the proceedings the Panel passeda resolution, under Rule 41 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, that the press and public be excluded from the hearing as the matters under consideration related XXX. Determination on impaired fitness to practise “Ms Dudley-Jones: Privacy: At the outset the Panel determined that the hearing would be held in private, in accordance with Rule 41(3) of the General MedicalCouncil (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 (‘the Rules’), given that all of the relevant issues concerned details relating to XXX. 1

Service and Attendance: The Panel considered whether notice had been properly served on Dr Alexander who is neither present nor represented at these proceedings. You provided the Panel with a bundle of correspondence which demonstrates the attempts that the GMChas made to contact Dr Alexander since the last hearing. You told the Panel that despite these attempts, there has been no response from Dr Alexander. You referred the Panel to a telephone note, dated 23 June 2011 of a conversation between the GMC and Dr A, XXX. XXX When the GMC expressed concern that its correspondence had been returned, Dr A confirmed that Dr Alexander has changed address. Dr Aagreed to deliver the correspondence to Dr Alexander personally and confirmed, on 11 July 2011, by telephone and email to the GMC that he had done so. The Panel was provided with evidence confirming that the Notice of Hearing, dated 1 November 2011, had been sent by Special Delivery Service, to Dr Alexander’s registered address. You informed the Panel that this had been returned to the GeneralMedical Council (GMC) as Royal Mail was unable to deliver it. On 4 November 2011, the GMC wrote to Dr A and asked him to provide confirmation of Dr Alexander’s new address. He did not feel able to do so for reasons of confidentiality but agreed to hand deliver the documents. Therefore, on 7 November 2011, the GMC sent Dr A a copy of the Notice of Hearing to be delivered to Dr Alexander. Dr Dr Dr Dr Ahas provided a sworn witness statement, dated 25 November 2011. A confirmed that he had delivered the Notice of Hearing and documents to Alexander on 8 November 2011. Whilst at Dr Alexander’s address, Dr A informed Alexander that the GMC still does not have an up-to-date registered address.

Having considered all the information presented to it, the Panel was satisfied that notice had beenproperly served on Dr Alexander in accordance with Rules 15 and 40 of the Rules. It was impressed with the additional efforts that the GMC has made to serve these documents on Dr Alexander over and above the statutory requirements, and the assistance of Dr A who has acted with great integrity throughout. Proceeding in the doctor’s absence: The Panel next considered, in accordance with Rule 31, whetheror not it should proceed in the absence of Dr Alexander. In so doing, the Panel has considered your submission on behalf of the GMC and all of the evidence provided. You submitted that Dr Alexander has failed to engage or participate in these proceedings and has voluntarily absented himself. An adjournment would not 2

remedy the situation. In these circumstances, it is proper to proceed in...