Watchdog to appeal ruling on doctor accused of sexually harassing medical students

The decision to allow a senior doctor who was alleged to have sexually harassed four medical students to continue working is to be appealed.

Dr Adam Chesters faced an investigation by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) following incidents during education sessions in Cambridge and Edinburgh between June 2022 and March 2024.

A panel found in September that the doctor had committed misconduct, but his actions were not sexually motivated and that his fitness to practise was not impaired.

The General Medical Council (GMC) has now confirmed it will appeal the decision after raising concerns about the MPTS’s handling of the case.

Chesters had previously worked as a consultant in emergency medicine and pre-hospital emergency medicine at Cambridge University Hospitals and had worked within the NHS since 2004.

He was acting as an examiner or supervisor during examination and demonstration sessions when he was alleged to have sexually harassed three women, referred to as Ms A, Ms B and Ms C, in Edinburgh between June 2022 and January 2024.

A fourth allegation relating to a Ms D took place at a lecture forum at Cambridge University.

The tribunal found that Chesters had touched Ms A’s hip and or groin area and positioned his body unnecessarily close to her during supervision of examinations.

He also asked Ms B to meet him in the evening to practice, asked her to exchange telephone numbers and touched her waist with his hands.

It was also found that the doctor made comments to Ms C about toilet breaks, nappies and drinking water, joked that students would have clothes on “unless they want to go naked” and walked her back against a wall during a demonstration.

Dr Chesters was also found to have positioned his chair close to Ms D so that their legs were touching, and to have moved her by placing his hands on her waist and shoulders and touching her T-shirt or uniform lapels.

The panel found that his belief that he could “manhandle” Ms D into any position he wanted constituted an abuse of his more senior position.

His actions were found to be “a clear and specific departure from the professional standards expected of a doctor”.

The panel found that Chesters’ fitness to practise was not impaired by reason of misconduct.

The GMC has now argued that the decision handed down to Chesters was “insufficient to protect the public”.

They said the panel had placed too much emphasis on Chesters’ good character when considering his evidence and that they were troubled by the way evidence concerning alleged rumours about his previous behaviour had been used to lessen the credibility of the witnesses.

A GMC spokesperson said: “Exercising our right of appeal is something we do with great care and only after detailed consideration. 

“Our focus is protecting the public, and we are satisfied given the nature of the allegations that it is right that we appeal.”