A former Sark doctor has won a legal battle against the Bailiwick’s Medical Director after he called her work in the island into question.
Dr Simone Borchardt successfully asked Guernsey’s Royal Court for permission to hold a judicial review of decisions made by Dr Peter Rabey.
It all concerned matters raised during her time working as Sark’s General Practitioner, and resulted in her resigning from her position, and leaving the island.
She had asked for the judicial review on several grounds, including the inconsistent handling of concerns raised about her, procedural flaws in Dr Rabey’s investigation, his failure to include her responses in the final report, and the improper dissemination of that report.
The judge, Fionnuala A. Connolly, granted permission for the judicial review on three of the four grounds, and allowed for the quashing of decisions based on the flawed investigation.
Background to the case
Dr Borchardt worked as Sark’s GP, under contract with Chief Pleas, from January 2021.
Concerns about her performance arose by February 2023, including reported issues with IT, patient care, and community engagement.
An appraisal and a subsequent NHS England review resulted in no action being taken in April 2023, but further concerns surfaced three months later. Dr Peter Rabey, the Responsible Officer for Guernsey and the wider Bailiwick, decided to launch a formal investigation into her medical practice at this point.
Dr Borchardt is said to have cooperated with the investigation, which saw 33 witnesses interviewed and a report produced.
Dr Borchardt raised concerns about the investigation process and the report’s findings, including the inclusion of “additional issues” she wasn’t interviewed about and she rejected the resulting Resolution Notice, which cited concerns about patient care, collaboration, medication management, and self-prescribing.
Dr Borchardt then resigned from her position as Sark’s doctor, and left the island.
Approving the Judicial Review
Dr Borchardt was granted the right to a Judicial Review of the situation on three out of four grounds concerning procedural flaws and irrationality in the investigation into her practice.
Specifically, the report deviated from the ‘Terms of Reference’ by including something which fell outside its scope. The report was finalised before Dr Borchardt could respond to witness information, and later requests to include her responses were unsuccessful.
She also objected to the report being shared with the GMC and her UK Responsible Officer before her input was included.
Dr Borchardt also argued that the Resolution Notice was based on the flawed report, meaning it was also flawed, and lacked sufficient reasoning for its findings.
These three aspects of the decision-making process were deemed flawed, and the judge granted orders for the decisions to be quashed.
Concerns about Dr Borchardt’s work
While the Judicial Review was granted, and led to the decisions previously made being quashed, one aspect of the appeal was denied.
Dr Borchardt has raised four issues in her request for the Judicial Review and the first, regarding the source of concerns about her practice, was denied.
It was ‘unclear’ who raised the alleged concerns, and to who these concerns were raised, although this aspect of the appeal was denied by the Judge.
Further discussions will now follow on whether mandatory orders or cost decisions are required in this case.
More to follow…