Doctor Aloaye Foy-Yamah v The General Medical Council

Doctor Aloaye Foy-Yamah v The General Medical Council

Panel's findings on reasonable belief in consent, credibility, procedural fairness, and exclusion of patient status/close relationship were within the range of reasonable findings given live evidence and specialist expertise. However, Panel's determination that Dr Foy presented no risk of repetition lacked logical and evidential foundation, failed to properly account for lack of insight/remediation, and was wrong; sanction must be reconsidered.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Doctor Aloaye Foy-Yamah; Appellant/respondent: The General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under S.40/s.40 a Medical Act 1983 / Judgment on Cross Appeals
Outcome
Dr Foy's appeal dismissed; GMC's appeal allowed on risk/impairment only; sanction to be reconsidered by Panel; suspension maintained pending reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Sexual Misconduct, Professional Misconduct, Fitness to Practise, Sanctions, Procedural Fairness, Burden of Proof
Medical Law Professional Discipline Administrative Law Sexual Misconduct Professional Misconduct Fitness to Practise Sanctions Procedural Fairness +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doctor Aloaye Foy-Yamah

Appellant/respondent

The General Medical Council

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under S.40/s.40 a Medical Act 1983 / Judgment on Cross Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Panel erred in finding reasonable belief in consent for sexual touching (Bedroom and Sofa Incidents)
  2. 2 Whether Panel erred in relying on Ms A's credibility despite proven dishonesty and inconsistencies
  3. 3 Whether there were serious procedural irregularities (medical records, burden of proof, transcripts)

Ratio Decidendi

Panel's findings on reasonable belief in consent, credibility, procedural fairness, and exclusion of patient status/close relationship were within the range of reasonable findings given live evidence and specialist expertise. However, Panel's determination that Dr Foy presented no risk of repetition lacked logical and evidential foundation, failed to properly account for lack of insight/remediation, and was wrong; sanction must be reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Dr Foy's appeal dismissed; GMC's appeal allowed on risk/impairment only; sanction to be reconsidered by Panel; suspension maintained pending reconsideration.

Orders

  • Dr Foy's appeal dismissed on all grounds.
  • GMC's appeal allowed on ground 6 (risk/impairment); dismissed on other grounds.