Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Suspended from practice — 1 year
The regulator’s term: suspension
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning Desmond Kidd, doctor (General Medical Council 3142769).
Decision date: 13 March 2026 · Hearing started 23 February 2026 and ended 13 March 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Desmond Kidd's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. It found that, while a Consultant Neurologist at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, he was dishonest in research articles about a university affiliation, dishonest about a patient's diagnosis and funding for her treatment, and dishonest about contacting former patients after he left. The tribunal suspended his registration for 12 months with an immediate order, and directed a review hearing.
Charges
Dr Kidd, a Consultant Neurologist at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust between 2009 and 2022 with a particular interest in neurosarcoidosis, faced allegations of dishonesty and clinical concerns. The Tribunal found proved: between June 2019 and July 2020 he produced articles dishonestly stating an affiliation with the Institute of Immunity and Transplantation at UCL when he had no such affiliation; in relation to Patient B, he dishonestly stated she had Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy when he knew she did not, dishonestly claimed funding had been approved by the IVIG Panel, and dishonestly stated there was electrophysiological evidence for a small fibre neuropathy; following his departure from the Trust in August 2022 he continued to correspond with former patients giving clinical advice, dishonestly denied doing so, and attempted to access medical records.
Findings
The Tribunal found Dr Kidd's fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct on all three parts of public protection. It placed the dishonesty at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness as it was persistent, premeditated and occurred within his professional role. It found a reckless disregard for professional standards over a prolonged period, and that Dr Kidd had shown no insight or remediation, having stated in correspondence that the allegations were 'a manifestation of management irritation and misrepresentation'. The clinical concerns regarding Patient B also amounted to serious misconduct.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The Tribunal identified the following features that increased seriousness: the behaviour was persistent and continued over a prolonged period of time; it involved elements of premeditation, particularly in respect of Patient B; a reckless disregard for patient safety or professional standards; the behaviour undermined a system designed to protect the public; and the behaviour undermined collaborative working.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.