The General Medical Council (GMC) is facing mounting criticism over its handling of sexual allegations against a GP after two women claimed they had been failed by the doctor’s watchdog.
An investigation by The i Paper revealed that Dr Thomas Plimmer, a self-declared sex addict, had been sacked for gross misconduct a decade ago but was allowed to continue practising. Now two of the six female complainants at his recent tribunal have come forward to accuse the GMC of missing opportunities to protect the public and prevent further misconduct.
In April, Plimmer was struck off for having sex with women at his GP surgery, performing a sex act in front of a junior female colleague, placing her hand on his groin, and issuing an indirect threat to slit the throat of one of his sexual partners.
But it emerged on Wednesday that a 2016 GMC hearing based on complaints from 2014 didn’t include allegations related to his sex addiction, which had been provided to the regulator. The case was largely held in private, and the details have never been made public.
Two of his accusers allege the GMC prioritised Plimmer’s privacy and wellbeing over their own. “This could have been prevented,” said one of the women.
To protect their anonymity, the female complaints will be referred to as Ruth and Sarah.
Ruth thought she was in a loving relationship with Plimmer. His professional status as a family doctor only cemented the sense of trust she felt for him.
She was unaware that years before they met, he had been fired over issues relating to a sex addiction, suspended by the NHS in the interests of patient safety, and referred to the GMC over it.
If Ruth had known, she said, “I wouldn’t have gone near him. I wouldn’t have dated him; I wouldn’t have risked it.”
Instead, the GMC left certain allegations related to his sex addiction out of the first case and handed it over to their disciplinary arm, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), which mostly held the hearing in private.
Only long after Ruth had become involved with Plimmer did she learn of the allegations that were upheld at the recent tribunal.
“It was a traumatic thing to discover and to be put through,” she said. But to now discover that the GMC knew about the allegations relating to his sex addiction 10 years ago has only compounded her sense of betrayal, said Ruth.
“It’s shocking. It feels shockingly incompetent. People weren’t aware of all the information.” This “was not in the public interest,” she said, explaining that patients, colleagues, and women who became involved with him had a right to know the details. Instead, she added, “I think it enabled him to believe he can get away with it.”
The MPTS strongly denies any failure to protect the public, and the GMC denies any suggestion that the earlier case was kept under wraps. According to the watchdog, a limited version of the outcome of the 2016 hearing was published by the MPTS, but without any details of the misconduct allegations, and that this was primarily to protect the identity of a witness.
“We take our role very seriously, and if there are concerns about a doctor’s practice we will investigate thoroughly and, where necessary, take action to protect current and future patient safety,” said Liz Jenkins, interim director of fitness to practise at the GMC.
“We are only able to refer an allegation to a hearing if there is a realistic prospect of establishing that the doctor’s fitness to practise is impaired.”
By the time Ruth learned of the earlier case it was too late, and, she said, she was having to cope with the revelations over his recent behaviour. Ruth became one of the six women who brought a complaint against him. “Then for several years to be subjected to a GMC hearing? All of it was a big trauma,” she said.
The effect on Ruth has been profound, she explained, damaging her ability to trust others, and affecting how she views an institution designed to protect the public. “It makes me second guess people,” she said. “I wouldn’t have done that before. The whole system needs looking at.” One of the key issues, she said, was privacy.
According to the GMC, the first hearing was largely held behind closed doors to protect Plimmer’s privacy and the privacy of a witness. But a witness in the recent hearing told The i Paper that her request to testify in private – during a phone conversation with the GMC – was not granted.
“I didn’t want to be identifiable. It was a very complex situation that brought a lot of very personal information about myself,” said Sarah. “I asked about giving my evidence privately and I was told that if I didn’t give my information publicly then I could potentially harm the case – that that information needed to be in the public domain. There was a huge pressure to do it their way.”
According to Sarah, the GMC reassured her, however, that by being anonymous during the proceedings, “that would protect me”. But her anonymity was not secured, she said, because her job title was referred to, enabling the press to mention it, which combined with the personal information probed during cross-examination was “very identifying” to anyone who knew her.
She said she was not allowed to testify behind a screen, enabling anyone watching the proceedings to see her. According to the GMC, however, Plimmer was required to turn his camera off for witnesses that requested a screen, so that he was not able to see them. The MPTS added that no application was made to be shielded from the public gallery during the online hearing.
The original ruling, which contained Sarah’s job title, was only changed when she complained to the GMC, she said.
“I felt that my professional credibility was negatively impacted,” she said. “I had messages from GPs who I’d worked with. It was a subject of gossip. The impact on my mental health was huge.”
By contrast, some of Plimmer’s testimony was allowed to be heard in private. “It really did feed into the power imbalance that underpinned the case,” said Sarah. “I felt like a sacrificial lamb.”
Witnesses are offered support throughout the proceedings, according to the GMC, which offers a free, confidential telephone helpline run by Victim Support.
The GMC’s handling of the first case was also a mistake, Sarah believes.
“It didn’t allow anybody to make informed decisions about their interactions with [Plimmer],” said Sarah. “There were lots of [missed] opportunities – this could have been prevented. The GMC’s purpose is to hold to account, but it feels more protective towards him.”
When approached by this newspaper, a GMC spokesperson appeared to deny that Sarah’s request for privacy was blocked, stating that the GMC did not refuse to address any request from a witness for their evidence to be heard in private.
Liz Jenkins, interim director of fitness to practise at the GMC, said: “During the [2023] tribunal hearing we argued that Mr Plimmer should be erased from the medical register because his actions were fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.”
She added: “Our professional standards make it clearer than ever that there must be zero tolerance of any form of sexual misconduct. A huge part of eradicating such unacceptable behaviour is making sure those who experience it feel supported to speak up and tell someone.
“We’ll continue listening and looking for opportunities where we can play our role in making sure victims and survivors are supported and heard. Erasure from the medical register is the most severe sanction a doctor can face and is imposed to protect patients and maintain public confidence in the profession. When the GMC submits for a sanction of erasure at a tribunal this demonstrates our commitment to patient safety and recognises the very serious concerns that have been raised.”
When approached for his response, Plimmer said: “I have not been struck off. I am currently suspended pending an appeal.” He declined to comment on matters relating to the earlier case.
He said he voluntarily took himself off the GP register in 2014 “in order to protect my mental health and access appropriate treatment”.
Plimmer added: “Around 5 per cent of the adult UK population have a sex addiction, porn addiction or CSBD” [compulsive sexual behaviour disorder] and that they are subject to shame and stigmatisation.”
