Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Hearing date from
13 Dec 2021
Hearing date to
21 Dec 2021
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ. It is possible to observe proceedings from our Manchester hearing centre. Please give us 14 days' notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about observing a hearing
GMC reference number
Area of practice
Barnet, Camden, Enfield

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that between 8 June 2012 and 6 February 2013, Dr Morgan-Rowe submitted a timesheet to the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust which contained false information and appeared to have been authorised when it had not.

It is also alleged that during an Annual Review of Competency Progression, Dr Morgan-Rowe failed to provide accurate information regarding outstanding fitness to practise concerns when completing four forms dated between 25 November 2013 and 18 June 2015.

It is alleged that Dr Morgan-Rowe’s actions above were dishonest.

Further, it is alleged that between 16 September 2013 and 4 December 2015 Dr Morgan-Rowe was under investigation in relation to alleged criminal offences of fraud.



This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.


All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.


If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.