Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — review hearing
Suspended from practice — 2 months
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 Charles Anigala, doctor (General Medical Council 6039186).
Decision date: 20 March 2026 · Hearing started 6 March 2026 and ended 20 March 2026
This sanction period has elapsed.
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Charles Anigala's fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of misconduct. At this review hearing, the tribunal looked at his progress since a four-month suspension imposed in 2025 for dishonesty about a patient who later died. It decided his insight and remediation were not yet complete, particularly around accurate record keeping. The tribunal suspended his registration for a further two months and directed a review hearing.
Charges
Review of an existing four-month suspension imposed by the October 2025 Tribunal for misconduct involving dishonesty. Dr Anigala had falsely told a senior colleague (Dr C) that he had spoken with the neurosurgical team at the Royal Victoria Hospital about Patient B prior to discharge, and made a knowingly false retrospective entry in Patient B's medical records to that effect. Patient B died two days after discharge.
Findings
The Tribunal found Dr Anigala's fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of misconduct. Applying the new MPTS Guidance, it placed the current and ongoing risk to public protection at the higher end of the lower spectrum. While insight and remediation into the original dishonesty had developed, the Tribunal was concerned about inaccuracies in attendance records for a February 2026 presentation, which raised continuing concerns about his understanding of accurate and honest record keeping — a central feature of the original misconduct.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.