Facts: the GMC found that Mr Southall, a consultant paediatrician, was guilty of serious professional misconduct where it was alleged, by a mother, that he had accused her during an interview of drugging and murdering one of her children. Mr Southall’s case was that he understood why the mother had formed this impression, but that he had not in fact made this accusation. His case was supported by the evidence of a social worker, who was present at the time. It was not clear from its determination why the GMC accepted the mother’s allegation and rejected Mr Southall’s explanation and the social worker’s evidence.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Waller, Dyson and Leveson LJJ) held that whilst, in straightforward cases, setting out the facts to be proved and finding them proved or not proved would generally be sufficient in that it would be obvious whose evidence had been rejected and why. However, when the case was not straightforward more detailed reasons were required. In this case, the issue was more complex than a simple issue of fact and whilst a lengthy judgment was not needed, a few sentences dealing with the salient issues were essential. The panel’s reasons were inadequate, and did not address some key evidential issues, including Mr Southall’s credibility, and the panel’s rejection of the social worker’s evidence. Moreover, the panel seemed to have been extremely concerned about Mr Southall’s belief that the circumstances of the older boy’s death needed to be investigated by him; that concern might have informed their approach to the factual dispute. Yet such an approach was not based on evidence and they were not entitled to form a view about it. Further, the panel had not been entitled to consider the extent to which the social worker could be said to be independent of Mr Southall.