A former Sark doctor has won a legal challenge against Guernsey’s Medical Director after he called her work in the island into question.

Dr Simone Borchardt was granted permission by Guernsey’s Royal Court to seek a judicial review of decisions made by Dr Peter Rabey, the Responsible Officer for Guernsey and the wider Bailiwick.

The case relates to concerns raised during Dr Borchardt’s time working as Sark’s General Practitioner, which led to a formal investigation into her practice and resulted in her resigning from her position, and leaving the island. 

Judge Fionnuala Connolly ruled that there were serious procedural flaws in the way the investigation was handled and granted permission for a judicial review on three out of four legal grounds, allowing for the quashing of decisions based on the investigation’s findings.

Dr Borchardt began working as Sark’s GP in January 2021, under contract with Chief Pleas.

Concerns about her performance were raised as early as February 2023, relating to IT issues, patient care, and community engagement.

An appraisal and subsequent NHS England review found no reason for action in April 2023. However, three months later, further concerns surfaced, prompting Dr Peter Rabey to launch a formal investigation into Dr Borchardt’s medical practice.

Dr Borchardt cooperated with the inquiry, during which 33 witnesses were interviewed, and a formal report was produced.

However, she later raised serious concerns about the process and findings, arguing that the report contained additional issues that she was never interviewed about.

Dr Borchardt also complained that responses were not included in the final report, despite multiple requests, and that the report was shared with external bodies, including the General Medical Council (GMC), before her input was considered.

She rejected the Resolution Notice that followed, which cited concerns about patient care, collaboration, medication management, and self-prescribing, and subsequently resigned from her position as Sark’s only doctor.

The court ruled in Dr Borchardt’s favour on three key legal grounds, concluding that the investigation strayed beyond its original remit, including issues that fell outside its terms of reference.

It also found that the report was finalised before Dr Borchardt could respond to witness statements, and later requests to include her input were unsuccessful.

The court deemed these procedural flaws serious enough to quash the decisions based on the report.

While the judicial review was granted, the court did not uphold all of Dr Borchardt’s claims.

One part of her legal challenge – relating to who initially raised concerns about Dr Borchardt’s practice – was rejected.

The court acknowledged that it was unclear who had reported the alleged issues or to whom they had been raised, but did not find this argument strong enough to grant a review on that basis.

Further legal discussions will now determine whether additional orders or cost rulings will be made in the case.

Dr Borchardt’s victory marks a significant challenge to the way medical investigations are carried out within the Bailiwick, and raises questions about oversight and due process in professional reviews of healthcare practitioners.