Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — review hearing
MPTS extends Dr Patrick Hart's suspension after review of protest-related findings
The tribunal continued suspension for a further 10 months, finding ongoing impairment after misconduct and convictions arising from climate protests. It directed another review and considered erasure disproportionate at this stage.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 28 August 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 10 months
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.
Concerning Patrick Hart, doctor (General Medical Council 7081937).
Decision date: 28 August 2026 · Hearing started 28 August 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Patrick Hart's fitness to practise remained impaired following misconduct and convictions arising from climate protests. On 28 August 2026 it extended his suspension for a further 10 months and directed another review. It acknowledged his sincerely held views but found insufficient evidence of insight, remediation or updated clinical skills. It concluded that suspension remained necessary and that erasure would be disproportionate at this first review.
Charges
This was the first review of a suspension imposed in October 2025 following misconduct and criminal convictions arising from climate protests, including aggravated trespass, criminal damage and breach of a court injunction. The review did not determine new charges.
Findings
The tribunal found that fitness to practise remained impaired by misconduct and conviction. It acknowledged Dr Hart's sincerely held views but found no evidence of relevant insight, remediation or maintenance of clinical skills. It continued suspension for a further 10 months with another review. It concluded that the order was needed to maintain public confidence and professional standards, and that erasure would be disproportionate at this first review.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.