Jailed climate activist doctor given interim 12-month GMC suspension

A doctor who has been sent to prison for criminal damage while protesting against climate change has had his GMC registration suspended for 12 months.

Bristol GP Patrick Hart was jailed for 12 months in January for damaging petrol-pump screens in direct action at an Esso garage on the M25 motorway in Essex in 2022.

His suspension follows an interim orders tribunal, which took place virtually while he serves his sentence. He has been referred to the MPTS (Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service) by the GMC for a Medical practitioners tribunal following his conviction.

MPTS confirmed the interim suspension will not count towards any potential suspension Dr Hart might face as a result of a future FTP tribunal, which is likely to take place after his release, noting ‘these are two separate proceedings’.

That means Dr Hart could be prevented from working as a doctor for a longer period of time if he is given a suspension at an FTP tribunal. That is because, unlike with remand sentences in courts, interim order suspensions are not taken into consideration when considering the total sentence served.

The tribunal found no clinical concerns but concluded suspension was appropriate in the public interest.

Mark Friend, representing the GMC, submitted that an interim suspension of 12 months was an ‘appropriate, proportionate and necessary response’.

He argued Dr Hart ‘may be in a position to prescribe for other prisoners’ and ‘may come under pressure to use his practising privileges whilst in custody’.

Dr Hart did not object to the interim order, noting how he is unable to practice as a doctor while serving his sentence, so it would make ‘no material difference’ to him while in custody.

But he said the GMC’s suggestion that he might prescribe to fellow prisoners was ‘frankly absurd’, since he had no access to a prescription pad and there was nowhere for any such prescriptions to be filled. He also told the tribunal he would not do this as a matter of professional principle, even if he had the means to do so.

Mr Friend suggested the interim suspension was also in the interests of Dr Hart’s own safety, suggesting he may be pressured or coerced by fellow prisoners to issue prescriptions.

Dr Hart said this had not happened so far and if it did, he would decline the request in the same way he would handle such a situation outside of prison. He argued this was more likely to happen outside of prison given the more realistic prospect of any such prescription being fulfilled.

Mr Friend also submitted that the public would be concerned if Dr Hart was not subject to an interim suspension, given he had been sentenced to prison.

Dr Hart said this argument was in the same vein as assertions made in the courts about the public perception of direct action on the climate crisis. He submitted that this assertion seems to be made repeatedly without any evidence to support it.

While Dr Hart acknowledged it may be true a reasonable member of the public would expect action to be taken on his registration in this situation, he said he would like to see evidence that this is the case as he believes it to be a matter of subjective opinion.

He told the tribunal the only evidence he has seen is of patients who have written to him saying they feel he has been unfairly treated and should not be in prison, and reports from some colleagues of their patients making similar statements.

Dr Hart told the tribunal he felt it was necessary to engage in the protest activity to help try to prevent mass extinction and ensure the survival of the human race.

The tribunal concluded that a reasonable member of the public, properly informed of all the material before the tribunal, would be shocked and offended to learn Dr Hart was not subject to any restriction on his practice while in prison.

It dismissed the suggestion by the GMC that Dr Hart was at risk of prescribing to fellow prisoners and dismissed the assertion it was necessary for Dr Hart’s own interests.

The 12-month suspension was immediately applied after the 19 March hearing and is subject to review after six months.