‘It’s sometimes right to disobey laws’: Doctor struck off for Insulate Britain protests speaks out | Environmental activism

A retired GP has become the second doctor to have their medical licence suspended after being convicted of non-violent offences during peaceful climate protests.

Dr Diana Warner, who worked as a GP for 35 years in surgeries around Bristol, was imprisoned for a total of six weeks for twice breaching private anti-protest injunctions banning people from blocking traffic on the M25 in 2021 and 2022. She was also jailed for six weeks for gluing her hand to the dock during her plea hearing at a magistrates court in east London in 2022.

Warner told the medical practitioners tribunal convened by the General Medical Council (GMC) last week that she took part in “peaceful acts of civil resistance” because the government was failing to protect the public from the existential threat posed by climate change. But the GMC barrister argued that her actions could “properly be described as deplorable by fellow medical practitioners, and she had brought the medical profession into disrepute”.

The tribunal accepted there were no concerns about her clinical practice, but it ruled “her decision to take part in unlawful action may lead some patients to question her judgment and therefore it may damage patients’ trust in her as a medical practitioner”.

The ruling comes after Dr Sarah Benn, a retired GP in Birmingham, had her medical licence suspended for five months in April. She was imprisoned for 32 days for breaching another private injunction by protesting on a grass verge and sitting in a private road at Kingsbury oil terminal in 2022. Benn is in the process of appealing with the support of the British Medical Association (BMA).

The first working GP will face a similar tribunal next year. Dr Patrick Hart, another Bristol-based GP, has a string of convictions for non-­violent climate activism, one of which resulted in a suspended sentence. He has refused to accept a formal warning from the GMC and will therefore face a hearing in February next year which could prevent him from working as a doctor .

Dr Emma Runswick, deputy chair of the BMA council, said doctors should not be prevented from taking part in peaceful protests. “We warned that the Dr Benn ruling would set a dangerous precedent by conflating unrelated custodial sentences with a doctor’s ability to provide good, safe medical care and maintain the confidence of the public, and now here we are again – a decision made on matters not directly related to patient care or their clinical skills,” she said.

She called on the GMC to rethink its decision to bring the case against Warner: “She has already been punished, and to now suspend her licence to practise is nothing but a malicious attempt to discredit her skills and background.”

Some doctors have argued the medical regulator has failed to learn from its rigid attitude to breaches of the law. The GMC this year apologised to at least 40 gay doctors sanctioned after they were convicted under legislation outlawing male homosexuality.

Warner said her experience of being cross-examined had been “horrendous”, causing her many sleepless nights. She said she had tried every other way to change government policy, including standing as a parliamentary candidate for the Green party.

“The GMC was blind to the context of my actions,” she said. “They argued in the tribunal that doctors must obey the law at all times. But this is a dangerous stance. As a second-generation Holocaust survivor, I know that it is sometimes right to disobey laws and orders. We are not putting people into gas chambers, but our failure to reduce emissions will cause the deaths of millions.”

The GMC said Warner was automatically referred to the tribunal as she received a custodial sentence after a criminal conviction. “Doctors, like all citizens, have the right to express their personal opinions on issues, including climate change,” said Anthony Omo, GMC director of fitness to ­practise. “However when doctors’ protesting results in law breaking, they must understand that it is their actions, rather than their motivations, that will be under scrutiny. Patients and the public have a high degree of trust in doctors. That trust can be put at risk when doctors fail to comply with the law.”