Anonymised testimonials in GDC Fitness to Practise Hearings

As with most fitness to practise hearings in the healthcare arena, registrants at the GDC are entitled to rely upon testimonial evidence from colleagues, patients and acquaintances in support of their good character and clinical competence. That evidence is routinely presented at Stage 2 of the hearing, when the tribunal is considering the linked issues of misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise. In some cases, the testimonial references can also be presented at the fact-finding stage (Stage 1) where character is relevant to the nature of the alleged misconduct (i.e. in cases of alleged dishonesty or sexual misconduct).

Ordinarily, testimonials are provided to the tribunal in the form of open letters which identify the author and detail their experiences of the registrant.  In some cases, those testimonial witnesses will also be called to give oral evidence at the fitness to practise hearing. 

Anonymised Testimonials

In a recent hearing before the GDC1, testimonial evidence was successfully adduced at stage 1 of the hearing in an anonymised form.  The evidence was also considered by the tribunal in private on the basis that it was accepted that it was necessary for the protection of the private lives of the authors and that it would be prejudicial to the interests of justice if the anonymous letters were not admitted.  

The allegations in the case largely related to the registrant’s conduct towards their colleagues.  The alleged misconduct arose in the context of a breakdown in relationships at work over a number of years. Although the registrant admitted many of the allegations, the testimonial evidence demonstrated that the registrant had positive relationships with many of their colleagues and there had not been a complete breakdown of relations in the practice, as suggested by the GDC. 

A significant proportion of the testimonial witnesses expressed concern about their identity being revealed to the GDC’s witnesses and the potential repercussions at work for having supported the registrant in his hearing. It was therefore agreed that the testimonial evidence for those expressing concerns would be anonymised. Evidence was provided to the tribunal of these concerns alongside the anonymised letters. 

At the hearing the tribunal ordered that all references to the testimonial evidence would be heard in private session. This meant that the identifies of those who had provided testimonial letters would not be revealed during the public hearing, bearing in mind that the GDC’s witnesses could remain in the public gallery once their evidence had concluded.  

Adopting such an approach meant that individuals were able to provide letters of support for the registrant when they may not otherwise have felt able to do so. The registrant, in turn, was able to rely on character evidence, which proved crucial to the Committee’s determinations at both stage 1 and stage 2 of their hearing. 

Conclusion

Testimonial evidence can make a significant difference to the outcome in regulatory proceedings. It would be unfair for a registrant to be unable to rely on such evidence due to witnesses feeling that they may suffer consequences for providing a letter of support (whether or not such a fear is well founded). 
Regulatory proceedings often follow on from professional relationships having broken down or having become strained and it is therefore helpful to be able to reassure potential testimonial witnesses that there is a way to provide relevant evidence without fear of reprisal. Anonymising testimonial evidence in appropriate circumstances, either by way of redaction or dealing with that evidence in private, ultimately benefits all concerned (the registrant, testimonial witnesses and the tribunal) and contributes to the fairness of the proceedings. 

1. The GDC registrant was represented by Ben Rich of 2 Hare Court, instructed by Laura Smith of Clyde & Co