Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal

PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 30/05/2017 – 31/05/2017 Medical Practitioner’s name: Dr Ian WALTON GMC reference number:

2654683

Primary medical qualification:

MB BS 1980 University of London

Type of case New - Conviction / Caution

Outcome on impairment Impaired

Summary of outcome Erasure Immediate order imposed Tribunal: Lay Tribunal Member (Chair)

Dr Bernard Herdan

Lay Tribunal Member:

Ms Bronwen Cooper

Medical Tribunal Member:

Dr John Garner

Legal Assessor:

Mr Alastair McFarlane

Tribunal Clerk:

Ms Angela Carney

Attendance and Representation: Medical Practitioner:

Not present and not represented

Medical Practitioner’s Representative:

N/A

GMC Representative:

Mr Alan Taylor, Counsel

Allegation and Findings of Fact That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended): 1. On 15 November 2016 at Birmingham Crown Court you were convicted of dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk. Found Proved

MPT: Dr WALTON

1

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal 2. On 20 December 2016 you were sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended for two years and must carry out unpaid work for 200 hours. Found Proved And that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired because of your conviction. Attendance of Press / Public The hearing was all heard in public. Determination on preliminary procedural matters, facts - 30/05/2017 Mr Taylor: Determination on Service 1. Dr Walton is neither present nor represented at these proceedings. The Tribunal has seen the Notice of Hearing letter dated 25 April 2017 sent to Dr Walton’s registered address. The Notice of hearing letter was also sent to Dr Walton via email on the same date. It has also seen subsequent correspondence regarding the hearing between Dr Walton and the GMC. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that notice of this hearing has been properly served in accordance with Rules 20 and 40 of the GMC (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004. Determination on Proceeding in Absence 2. The Tribunal has noted that in Dr Walton’s email dated 29 May 2017, he stated that he will not be attending the hearing and will not be represented. Dr Walton did not request a postponement of the hearing in this email and the Tribunal is satisfied that he is aware of the hearing and has decided not to attend. The Tribunal has borne in mind that, were it to adjourn today’s hearing, there is no indication that Dr Walton would be more likely to attend a future hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that Dr Walton stated that he will not be attending and has voluntarily absented himself. The Tribunal has considered its discretion to proceed in Dr Walton’s absence with the utmost care and caution. It is satisfied, bearing in mind Dr Walton’s expressed intention and the public interest in the expeditious conduct of its regulatory function that it is in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence. Determination on Facts Documentary Evidence 3.

The Tribunal was provided with the following documentary evidence:

MPT: Dr WALTON

2

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal        

The signed statement of Conditional Caution dated 22 December 2016 Transcript from sentencing hearing of 20 December 2016 Dr Walton’s Summary of evidence (undated) Statement of Dr Walton dated 23 May 2017 Letter from Ms A, a solicitor from Irwin Mitchell, to Dr Walton dated 29 December 2016 The Chief Accountable Officer’s reports to the Board of the Sandwell and the West Birmingham CCG dated 19 December 2012 and 27 March 2013 Minutes of Private Governing Body meeting 4 June 2014 Email from Dr Walton to the GMC dated 4 April 2017 setting out his application for Voluntary Erasure

Background 4. The Tribunal noted that on 15 November 2016 Dr Walton was the co-defendant at Birmingham Crown Court when he was convicted of dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk. 5. At the time of the offence Dr Walton was a general practitioner with a practice located in Tipton. Dr Walton was on the governing board of Sandwell and Wolverhampton Borough Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) and employed by them as the senior physician concerned with mental health. Dr Walton and his codefendant held positions of considerable trust and responsibility within the CCG. Dr Walton was also the chairman of a charity called Primhe whose function was to deliver mental health training to medical practitioners on a not for profit basis. 6. In August 2011 Dr Walton and his co-defendant both became Directors of a training company (‘the Training Company’) which was set up to train medical practitioners in mental health. The Training Company was set up to allow Dr Walton and his co-defendant to deliver training programmes which they had created and therefore owned. 7. In late 2012, the CCG had £153,600, within the innovation funding budget, which it needed to spend by the end of the financial year. On 13 January 2013, Dr Walton orally presented proposals to the Strategic Commissioning Committee of the CCG. They included a proposal to train sixty GPs at a cost of £1,600 each, equalling a total expenditure of £96,000, (although a higher figure of £153,600 appeared in an appendix to one of the business cases). However, that funding had apparently already been allocated elsewhere, so none of the bids were ever approved, but despite that, Dr Walton continued as if funding for the training of the sixty GPs had been approved. 8. Judge Farrer QC stated that Dr Walton and his co-defendant would have been well aware of the true position. Judge Farrer QC noted that:

MPT: Dr WALTON

3

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal    

Dr Walton was never told or given the impression that the bid had been approved A detailed financial breakdown would have been required before such approval could have been given; no such breakdown was ever requested or provided. In the event of approval, the project would have been signed off at a senior level and was not. In the event of approval, both a formal memorandum of funding and a purchase order would have been created and sent to the team in which Dr Walton worked; that never took place.

9. Either Dr Walton or his co-defendant informed the team at Primhe that funding had been approved and that the training would be delivered by the Training Company on behalf of Primhe. On 19 March 2013 an invoice for £145,920 was sent to Primhe by the co-defendant for the delivery of advanced diplomas for sixty GPs. On 22 March 2013 Dr Walton, instructed the admin team at Primhe to submit an invoice to the CCG for £153,600. The CCG paid Primhe the £153,600, and in June 2013, the money was transferred into the Training Company’s bank account. The Judge found that Dr Walton and his co-defendant both knew that the Training Company was not entitled to receive any of this money. 10. Judge Farrer QC accepted that Dr Walton and his co-defendant always intended to deliver the promised GP training and used a portion of the money obtained to train between 69 and 101 GPs. He noted the breakdown of the expenditure of £153,600 obtained from the CCG, was as follows:   

£49,481 was spent in training GPs £7,680 went to Primhe in connection with delivery of training £61,946 remained unspent

This left a balance of approximately £34,000. 12. The Judge accepted that the unspent £61,946 was preserved in a bank account as it was intended to use it in due course to deliver further training on behalf of the CCG. In relation to the balance of £34,000 the Judge further accepted that, had the training been approved, the sum would have represented commensurate payment to Dr Walton and his co-defendant for the time they invested in delivering the training. 13. Judge Farrer QC commented that there were two aspects to the fraud by Dr Walton and his co-defendant. Firstly, they dishonestly obtained the entire sum of £153,600, and thereby diverted that money from the project to which it should have been applied. Secondly, they dishonestly obtained the opportunity to earn £34,000 for themselves. He stated that they had allowed their passion for mental health services to override their judgement and honesty.

MPT: Dr WALTON

4

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal 14. On 26 June 2013, Dr Walton’s co-defendant notified the CCG of his connection to the Training Company, long after the money had been paid by the CCG to Primhe. Between 30 August 2013 and 6 January 2014, Dr Walton, met with a series of employees of the CCG and sought to reassure them that the bid had been approved, when he knew it had not. It was not until September 2013 that Dr Walton notified the CCG of his connection to the Training Company. 16. Judge Farrer QC considered as aggravating factors that Dr Walton and his codefendant were both in positions of considerable trust and acted in breach of that trust. Moreover, the victim of the fraud was an arm of the National Health Service and that the inevitable effect of their actions was to erode public confidence. 17.

He considered that the following were mitigating factors:     

Dr Walton’s behaviour was not dishonest from the outset The promised training was delivered and surplus money was retained for future training The CCG did not seek the return of the money, but indicated they wished for further training to proceed. Whilst the dishonesty allowed Dr Walton and his co-defendant to earn approximately £17,000 each, the Judge found that their primary motivation was to train GPs, and thereby improve mental health services in Sandwell. Dr Walton and his co-defendant accepted it was appropriate for the Judge to make a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act in the sum of £153,600.

18. Dr Walton pleaded guilty before the trial. The Judge found that Dr Walton committed this offence at a time when XXX. The Judge found that this was undoubtedly a stressful time for Dr Walton he accepted that, to a limited extent, this may have affected Dr Walton’s judgment. The Judge noted Dr Walton’s personal mitigation and the loss of his good name and reputation that he had spent thirty years building. 19. The Judge found that Dr Walton’s fraud was motivated not by greed, but by a desire to improve mental health services. Dr Walton was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended for a period of two years, and 200 hours of unpaid work. The Judge further made a confiscation order in the sum of £76,800 to be paid by each codefendant and each was required to pay £7,500 towards the costs of the prosecution. The Tribunal’s Approach 20. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has considered all of the evidence adduced in this case. It has taken account of your submissions on behalf of the GMC and the documentary evidence provided by Dr Walton. The Tribunal bore in mind that the burden of proof rests on the GMC throughout and that the standard is the civil standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities

MPT: Dr WALTON

5

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal The Tribunal’s Findings 1. On 15 November 2016 at Birmingham Crown Court you were convicted of dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk. Found Proved 21. The Tribunal bore in mind the General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Rules 2004, in particular Rule 34 (3) and Rule 34(5), which state: ‘34(3) Production of a certificate purporting to be under the hand of a competent officer of a Court in the United Kingdom or overseas that a person has been convicted of a criminal offence or, in Scotland, an extract conviction, shall be conclusive evidence of the offence committed. 34(5) The only evidence which may be adduced by the practitioner in rebuttal of a conviction or determination certified in the manner specified in paragraph (3) or (4) is evidence for the purposes of proving that he is not the person referred to in the certificate or extract.’ 22. The Tribunal has noted the Certificate of Conviction dated 20 December 2016 which has been signed by a competent officer the Court. The Tribunal has also noted Dr Walton’s statement dated 23 May 2017 in which he stated: ‘I fully acknowledge that I did not disclose my conflict of interest and for this reason I pleaded guilty to a single charge of dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk.’ 23. The Tribunal has taken account of the Certificate of Conviction and Dr Walton’s witness statement. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Certificate of Conviction is conclusive proof of Dr Walton’s conviction. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 1 of the allegation, proved. 2. On 20 December 2016 you were sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended for two years and must carry out unpaid work for 200 hours. Found Proved 24. The Tribunal has noted the Certificate confirming the sentence and the transcript of His Honour Judge Farrer QC’s sentencing remarks in which he sentences Dr Walton to two years imprisonment suspended for two years and that he must carry out unpaid work for 200 hours. Accordingly, the Tribunal found paragraph 2 of the allegation, proved.

MPT: Dr WALTON

6

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal Determination on Impairment - 31/05/2017 Mr Taylor: 1. The Tribunal has considered under Rule 17(2)(l) of the General Medical Council (GMC) (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 whether, on the basis of the facts found proved, Dr Walton’s fitness to practise is impaired. GMC Submissions 2. You submitted that there has been a conviction in this case which the Tribunal found proved. You referred the Tribunal to Good Medical Practice 2006 and 2013 (GMP) which set out the standards of behaviour expected of doctors. You stated that Dr Walton’s dishonest conduct which led to his conviction for fraud was a significant departure from these standards. You specifically referred to paragraphs 57, 73 and 75 in the 2006 edition of GMP and to paragraphs 65, 77, 78 and 79 of the 2013 edition. You stated that Dr Walton’s conduct represents a substantial departure from the standards expected in terms of honesty and integrity. 3. You reminded the Tribunal of the Judge’s summary of the aggravating features of this case. You stated that Dr Walton was in a position of considerable trust and he acted in breach of that trust. You also stated that this was criminality which occurred in a workplace setting and the victim was an arm of the National Health Service (the NHS), so the inevitable effect of Dr Walton’s actions would be to erode public confidence in the profession. You reminded the Tribunal that this was a serious matter, which carried with it a custodial sentence of two years, albeit suspended for two years due to mitigating factors. 4. You submitted that this is not conduct which is easily remediable but even if it were, it is essential to consider the need to protect the public and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour, so as to maintain public confidence in the profession. You submitted that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. You stated that Dr Walton’s actions, which resulted in the conviction, were such that any efforts made by Dr Walton to remediate would carry very much less weight, than for example, a clinical case. 5. You stated that Dr Walton has breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession – relating to honesty and integrity - and has acted dishonestly. You submitted that Dr Walton has brought disgrace upon himself and the conviction would be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners. You submitted, in all the circumstances, that Dr Walton’s fitness to practice is currently impaired by reason of his conviction.

MPT: Dr WALTON

7

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal The Tribunal’s Approach 6. The Tribunal has noted the documentary evidence provided by Dr Walton, as listed earlier in the determination on facts. 7. The Tribunal noted Dr Walton’s personal statement which included some observations on Judge Farrer’s remarks as to funds being diverted from the ‘winter pressures’ budget and who had signed off payments for training undertaken. However, the Tribunal is not able to revisit the factual basis of the conviction and for this relied upon the observations of the Judge in the sentencing hearing. 8. In relation to Dr Walton’s expression of apology and regret, it noted that he stated:

‘…I fully acknowledge that I did not disclose my conflict of interest and for this reason I pleaded guilty to a single charge of dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk. The final letter from my solicitor will explain to the panel, better than I, the details of the case. I wholeheartedly apologise to any colleagues or innocent parties who I may have upset and I recognise that I let my standards fall below the very high one’s [sic] that I have always previously followed. I have never otherwise broken the law or had my reputation questioned in a 36- year medical career….’ 9. The Tribunal has given careful consideration to your submissions and the documentary evidence provided by Dr Walton. 10. The Tribunal has exercised its own judgement in considering the matter of impairment. Throughout its deliberations, the Tribunal has borne in mind the overarching objective which is to protect and promote the health, safety and well-being of the public, to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession and to promote and maintain proper professional standards of conduct for members of that profession. The Tribunal’s Findings 11. The Tribunal considered whether Dr Walton’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction. 12. The Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Walton has breached paragraphs 57 and 73 of GMP (2006), which state: ‘57.

You must make sure that your conduct at all times justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession.

MPT: Dr WALTON

8

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal

73. You must be honest in financial and commercial dealings with employers, insurers and other organisations or individuals. In particular: a. before taking part in discussions about buying or selling goods or services, you must declare any relevant financial or commercial interest that you or your family might have in the transaction b. if you manage finances, you must make sure the funds are used for the purpose for which they were intended and are kept in a separate account from your personal finances.’ 13. The Tribunal was also satisfied that Dr Walton has breached paragraphs 65, 77 and 79 of GMP (2013), which state:

‘65. You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession. 77. You must be honest in financial and commercial dealings with patients, employers, insurers and other organisations or individuals. 79. If you are faced with a conflict of interest, you must be open about the conflict, declaring your interest formally, and you should be prepared to exclude yourself from decision making.’ 14. Whilst the Tribunal accepted that it is difficult to remediate dishonesty, it has seen little evidence of remediation or insight. 15. The Tribunal accepts that there have been no concerns regarding Dr Walton’s clinical practice. Further, it accepts that Dr Walton’s prime motivation was to deliver training to GP’s, as opposed to a desire to enrich himself. 16. The Tribunal considered that Dr Walton’s conviction for fraud was very serious. It breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely, that all doctors must be honest. The Tribunal is mindful that Dr Walton’s suspended custodial sentence remains in force for a further 18 months. The Tribunal considered that the sentence underscored the seriousness of the offence. The Tribunal had no hesitation in concluding that the need to uphold standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made in this case. Further, the Tribunal considers that fellow practitioners would find Dr Walton’s dishonest conduct deplorable. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that Dr Walton’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his conviction.

MPT: Dr WALTON

9

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal Determination on Sanction - 31/05/2017 Mr Taylor: 1. Having determined that Dr Walton’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his conviction, the Tribunal has now considered what action, if any, it should take with regard to his registration. Submissions 2. You reminded the Tribunal of the statutory overarching objective and referred it to the Sanctions Guidance (May 2017) (the SG) in particular paragraphs 56, 107 to 109, 116-117, 120-122, 124 and 128. 3. You submitted that it would be wholly inadequate to take no action in this case. In relation to conditions you stated that Dr Walton’s conviction in itself renders the formulation of conditions in this case inadequate. You submitted that there are no appropriate conditions that could be formulated in this matter as Dr Walton’s conviction and the conduct leading to it are too serious for conditions to be appropriate. 4. You also submitted that, given the gross breach of trust and Dr Walton’s conduct leading to his conviction, a period of suspension would not be appropriate. You submitted that Dr Walton has demonstrated behaviour that is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. You further submitted that the only means of protecting the public interest is to erase Dr Walton’s name from the Medical Register and anything other than erasure would not be in the public interest in this case. The Tribunal’s Approach 5. The Tribunal has given careful consideration to all the evidence adduced, including such information as it has had from Dr Walton, together with your submissions on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC). 6. The Tribunal has in particular borne in mind the statutory overarching objective as set out the SG paragraph 14 which includes to: a.

…

b.

promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession

c. promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for the members of the profession. 7. The decision as to the appropriate sanction to impose in this case, if any, is a matter for this Tribunal exercising its own judgement. In reaching its decision, the

MPT: Dr WALTON

10

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal Tribunal has taken account of the SG. It has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not designed to be punitive, but to protect patients and the wider public interest, although sanctions may have a punitive effect. 8. Throughout its deliberations, the Tribunal has applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the doctor’s interests with the public interest. The public interest includes, amongst other things, the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Tribunal’s Decision Mitigating Factors 9. The Tribunal considered the following to be mitigating factors in Dr Walton’s case:       

Dr Walton’s apology Dr Walton’s prime motivation was not for financial gain but to improve mental health services Dr Walton’s long career dedicated to improving mental health services and his otherwise good character The high regard in which Dr Walton appeared to be held by his colleagues and patients Judge Farrer’s conclusion that Dr Walton’s passion clouded his judgement and honesty It appears that there will be no financial loss to the public purse Difficult personal circumstances due to XXX

Aggravating Factors 10. The Tribunal considered the following to be aggravating factors in Dr Walton’s case:     

Dr Walton’s serious breach of trust occurred in a workplace setting The victim of Dr Walton’s fraud was an arm of the National Health Service The fraud was covered up for an extended period The conviction could erode public confidence in the profession Little evidence of insight or remediation

No Action 11. The Tribunal first considered whether to conclude Dr Walton’s case by taking no action.

MPT: Dr WALTON

11

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal 12. The Tribunal considered that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case in which it might be justified in taking no action against Dr Walton’s registration. The Tribunal determined that in view of its findings on impairment, relating to serious dishonesty and conviction, it would be neither sufficient, proportionate nor in the public interest, to conclude this case by taking no action. Conditions 13. The Tribunal next considered whether it would be sufficient to impose conditions on Dr Walton’s registration. It has borne in mind that any conditions imposed would need to be appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable. 14. The Tribunal is of the opinion that that a period of conditional registration would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the nature of Dr Walton’s conviction; nor, in a case involving dishonesty, could conditions be devised that would protect the public interest and maintain public confidence in the medical profession. The Tribunal has, therefore, determined that it would not be sufficient to direct the imposition of conditions on Dr Walton’s registration. Suspension 15. The Tribunal then went on to consider whether suspending Dr Walton’s registration would be appropriate and proportionate. 16. The Tribunal has borne in mind paragraph 91 of the SG which states that suspension has a deterrent effect and can be used to send out a signal to the doctor, the profession and public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting a registered doctor. It also noted that suspension from the medical register also has a punitive effect, in that it prevents a doctor from practising (and therefore from earning a living as a doctor) during the suspension, although this is not its intention. 17. The Tribunal considered that there were serious breaches of the principles of Good Medical Practice and that despite Dr Walton’s main motivation being for patient benefit rather than personal gain, the scale and seriousness of his dishonesty were fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. Accordingly the Tribunal was satisfied that suspension was not a sufficient or proportionate sanction to protect the public interest and maintain public confidence in the profession. Erasure 18. Regarding paragraph 108 of the SG, the Tribunal noted that erasure may be appropriate even where the doctor does not present a risk to patient safety, but where this action is necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession. In the view of the Tribunal this public interest is engaged in this case.

MPT: Dr WALTON

12

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal 19. The Tribunal noted paragraph 109 of the SG which states that if any of the factors listed were present erasure may be appropriate. The Tribunal considered the following factors from paragraph 109 applied in this case: A particularly serious departure from the principles set out in Good medical practice where the behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a ‘a.

doctor.

A deliberate or reckless disregard for the principles set out in Good medical practice and/or patient safety. b. d.

Abuse of position/trust (see Good medical practice, paragraph 65: ‘You

h.

Dishonesty, especially where persistent and/or covered up’

must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession’).

The Tribunal has borne in mind paragraph 17 of the SG which states Good medical practice states that registered doctors must make sure that their conduct 20.

justifies their patients’ trust in them and the public’s trust in the profession. The Tribunal concluded that Dr Walton’s conduct fell far short of meeting this fundamental tenet. 21. The Tribunal has borne in mind paragraph 128 of the SG which states that dishonesty, if persistent and/or covered up is likely to result in erasure. 22. Whilst the Tribunal noted that there have been no concerns about Dr Walton’s clinical practice, it has borne in mind paragraph 124 of the SG which states: ‘Although it may not result in direct harm to patients, dishonesty related to matters outside the doctor’s clinical responsibility (eg providing false statements or fraudulent claims for monies) is particularly serious. This is because it can undermine the trust the public place in the medical profession. Health authorities should be able to trust the integrity of doctors, and where a doctor undermines that trust there is a risk to public confidence in the profession. Evidence of clinical competence cannot mitigate serious and/or persistent dishonesty.’ 23. Balancing all these factors, the Tribunal has determined that Dr Walton’s conviction is fundamentally incompatible with his continuing to practise medicine. Therefore, it has determined that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the only sufficient and proportionate sanction is one of erasure. The Tribunal is of the view that the public interest requires that it be made clear that Dr Walton’s behaviour, as detailed previously, is unacceptable in a member of the medical profession.

MPT: Dr WALTON

13

Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal 24. Accordingly, the Tribunal has determined to direct that Dr Walton’s name be erased from the Medical Register. 25. The effect of the foregoing direction is that, unless Dr Walton’s exercises his right of appeal, his name will be erased from the Medical Register 28 days from the date on which written notice of this decision is deemed to have been served upon him. Determination on Immediate Order - 31/05/2017 Mr Taylor: 1. Having determined that Dr Walton’s name be erased from the medical register, the Tribunal has considered, in accordance with Section 38 of the Medical Act 1983, as amended, whether his registration should be subject to an immediate order. Submissions 2. You submitted on behalf of the General Medical Council, that an immediate order of suspension is necessary in the public interest to maintain public confidence in the profession. You also submitted that the Tribunal should revoke Dr Walton’s Interim Order of suspension. The Tribunal’s Decision 3. Having considered the submissions, and in the light of all the circumstances of the case, in particular the serious dishonesty which led to Dr Walton’s conviction, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession to impose an immediate order for suspension. This is for the same reasons as set out in the Tribunal’s substantive decision. Dr Walton’s Interim Order of suspension is hereby revoked. 4. The substantive direction for erasure, as already announced, will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed to have been served upon Dr Walton, unless he lodges an appeal in the interim. If Dr Walton does lodge an appeal, the immediate order for suspension will remain in force until the appeal is determined. 5.

That concludes this case.

Confirmed Date 31 May 2017

MPT: Dr WALTON

Dr Bernard Herdan, Chair

14