The case of Benn v the General Medical Council is not a criminal matter and when the GMC, the supervisory body for doctors in the UK, ordered Benn to be suspended as a result of taking part in a protest organised by climate agitators Just Stop Oil she appealed to The High Court which considered all the facts and law and the decision made by the Tribunal and found

a) that the Tribunal did not err in law in making its finding
b) that the Tribunal did not reach a conclusion that was not supported by the facts
c) that the Tribunal's decision was, in all the circumstances the correct decision; and
d) the appeal was dismissed

The Tribunal had concluded that the retired general practitioner's ability to practise was impaired.

"Dr Benn contended that, as a doctor, she had a moral duty to take action to protect life and health in the context of the climate emergency because of the threat it posed to the whole of humanity."

"Dr Benn committed a series of offences during September
and October 2019, for which she was prosecuted. These all involved non-violent but unlawful acts committed through the organisation Extinction Rebellion."

"he misconduct alleged and found proved arose out of Dr Benn’s participation in Just Stop Oil protests, whereby she repeatedly breached a High Court injunction resulting in her imprisonment."

"In concluding that Dr Benn’s fitness to practise was impaired, the Tribunal relied on both the need to promote and maintain public confidence in the profession and the need to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the
profession. The Tribunal found that Dr Benn’s behaviour in not complying with the law on several occasions, disrupting public services and acting in a way that led to a custodial sentence would bring the profession into disrepute."

"that suspension was a necessary and proportionate response. That
may well not have been the case had Dr Benn recognised that she should conduct herself within the standards expected of the profession in the future [but] Dr Benn had demonstrated that she intended
to continue to act as she had done previously. Her desire was to remain registered as a doctor while continuing to commit acts found to amount to misconduct in the statutory sense. In those circumstances, action is necessary to uphold the relevant statutory objectives."

Where, all professions and regulators must now ask, does that leave the fit and proper persons tests?

Historically, minor offences not involving harm to persons or fraud would be overlooked or subject to a discipliary notice and no more.

No longer it seems.

Full judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Benn-v-General-Medi…