CAA launches legal challenge after GMC lets notorious doctor under antisemitism investigation continue practising

Campaign Against Antisemitism has today notified the General Medical Council (GMC) of its intention to challenge in court, via judicial review, the decision not to impose conditions on Dr Rahmeh Aladwan while she is under investigation for misconduct.

The decision has also drawn condemnation from Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who has said he has no confidence in the medical regulator following this ruling.

Despite Dr Aladwan’s repeated use of social media and public appearances to wage what amounts to a campaign of hatred against British Jews, a hearing of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) on 25th September determined that she had done nothing to “undermine public confidence in the medical profession,” and that her abusive rhetoric against British Jews did not “amount to bullying or harassment.”

The tribunal also concluded that “a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would not be alarmed or concerned to learn that Dr Aladwan had been permitted to continue in unrestricted medical practice.”

Dr Aladwan has:

• Expressed support for the atrocity carried out by Hamas on 7th October 2023;
• Promoted propaganda published by the Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas;
• Called for the eradication of “Jewish supremacy”;
• Described the Royal Free Hospital in London as “a Jewish supremacy cesspit”;
• Asserted that over 90% of the world’s Jews are genocidal; and
• Posted “GLOBALISE THE INTIFADA” in response to an article about the fatal terrorist attack on a synagogue in Manchester.

Rhetoric of this sort on her social media platforms is absolutely prolific. It is extraordinary that the tribunal could possibly have come to the conclusion that it did.

The letter before action sent to the GMC today sets out the grounds for Campaign Against Antisemitism’s challenge:

• The unlawful or unreasonable failure to properly consider whether Dr Aladwan’s posts qualified for protection under Article 10 ECHR;
• The failure to suspend or consider suspension;
• The unreasonable failure properly to consider and apply relevant guidance;
• An unreasonable (perverse) conclusion on the evidence; and
• Failure to provide adequate reasons for the decision to impose no order.

In order to avoid this matter proceeding to court, the GMC is required to confirm that it will withdraw the MPTS’ determination and re-make it in accordance with relevant legal principles and guidance as soon as possible.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “Just one day after we notified the GMC of our intention to launch a legal challenge of the decision not to impose conditions on Dr Rahmeh Aladwan while she is under investigation for misconduct, the regulator is re-referring her case to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. Why does it take the threat of legal action from us to get regulators in Britain to do their duty?

“The Manchester terrorist attack took place in no small part because of a cataclysmic failure in enforcement by the authorities – from our streets to the professions. It is evident to any reasonable person that this doctor is wholly unfit to practice medicine. Let us hope that the system delivers the correct result this time around, and that the myriad other medical cases are finally addressed with the urgency that they require.”