What was the case about?

In R (Karmakar) v Royal College of GPs [2024] EWHC 2211 (Admin) a trainee GP applied for Judicial Review on the basis that the RCGP's policy amounted to an unlawful fettering of its discretion, was irrational, amounted to indirect discrimination, and was in breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED) and the duty to make reasonable adjustments as set out in the Equality Act 2010.

In order to practise as a GP, trainee GPs are required to complete the RCGP's assessment process which consists of three assessments including a written examination called the applied knowledge test (the "AKT"). The RCGP permit candidates a maximum of four attempts at the AKT with a fifth attempt being permitted exceptionally and solely on the basis of additional education attainment. The Claimant had initially taken and failed the AKT three times. Following her third attempt she was diagnosed with neurodiverse cognitive profile. She applied for reasonable adjustments for her fourth attempt receiving additional time to take the test. She again failed but with an improved score. She applied to the RCGP to void her first three attempts or to be allowed another attempt but was refused on the basis that there was "no regulatory mechanism to enable a further attempt" and that the RCGP was required to apply the regulations consistently to every trainee.

What did the Court find?

The Court notes that, as the RCGP's powers were derived from its Royal Charter, it was open to the RCGP to decide whether there should be any exceptions to its criteria but this was still subject to rationality and the Equality Act 2010. The Court dismissed the Claimant's claims under the Equality Act 2010 (as the policy could not be applied to both disabled and non-disabled applicants) but found that the RCGP had acted irrationally in providing candidates who knew of their disability extra time for each attempt without offering the same to those who discovered a disability after they had sat their exams. The Court accepted that there were limiting factors on the number of tests a candidate may take but stated that the different treatment for candidates with disabilities was irrational and that "the College has failed entirely to provide a coherent justification for its policy." 

This case provides an insight into how the courts are likely to interpret decisions by the Royal Colleges and other qualification bodies and the importance of considering rationality and ensuring there is satisfactory justification for all decisions. In his judgment Mr Justice Garnham notes that the RCGP are not the only Royal College with similar assessment rules and this case may provide a timely reminder to review and consider changes to your assessment policies where appropriate.