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 Colin Winter, doctor (General Medical Council 4765703).
Decision date: 9 April 2026 · Hearing started 1 April 2026 and ended 9 April 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Colin Winter, a consultant anaesthetist, was dishonest when applying for jobs at Holt Doctors and Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust in 2023 and 2024. He failed to disclose an internal NHS investigation into his practice and a later GMC investigation. The tribunal said his dishonesty was repeated and serious. It suspended his registration for 12 months with a review and imposed an immediate order.
Charges
Dr Winter admitted that during registration with Holt Doctors in November-December 2023 he failed to disclose a Maintaining High Professional Standards (MHPS) investigation by the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and later failed to notify Holt Doctors of a GMC fitness-to-practise investigation. He also admitted that on application forms to Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust in March and May 2024 for locum and substantive consultant anaesthetist positions, he gave dishonest answers about restrictions on his practice and his ability to work independently. All allegations were admitted and found proved.
Findings
The Tribunal found Dr Winter's omissions and dishonest disclosures amounted to serious misconduct breaching fundamental tenets of the profession. The dishonesty was repeated, persistent, undertaken in a professional context for financial gain across two organisations and three applications over six months. The Tribunal placed the misconduct at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness. It found his insight was incomplete and there was no objective evidence of remediation. All three limbs of public protection were engaged and his fitness to practise was currently impaired.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Early admissions to the entirety of the Allegation; long career of 25 years with no previous adverse regulatory history; positive testimonials and Responsible Officer statements regarding clinical competence and patient safety in subsequent practice; significant personal circumstances at the time of the misconduct.
Aggravating factors
Dishonesty was repeated and persistent across two organisations, three employment applications and a six-month period; undertaken for substantial financial gain; involved a deliberate decision to deceive; abuse of professional position; reckless disregard for patient safety; insight was incomplete with the doctor at times trivialising the misconduct as a 'mistake' or 'infraction'.
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.