Dr Odunayo ODEWOLE
Doctor- Decision on impairment
- Hearing not yet held
- Outcome
- Hearing not yet held
- Type of case
- Misconduct, Conviction / Caution
- Hearing start date
- 17 Feb 2025
- Hearing end date
- 21 Feb 2025
- Details
- Hearing adjourned part-heard. Previously sat: 04-08 November 2024.
- Hearing venue
- Virtual hearing Get directions to Virtual hearing for Dr Odunayo ODEWOLE's hearing. External link opens in a new tab.
- GMC reference number
- 7568426
- Area of incident
- Boston, Cambridge
- Profession
- Doctor
Pre hearing information
- Allegation
The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that, on 13 December 2021, at Boston Magistrates’ Court, Dr Odewole was convicted of driving without insurance and failing to give information to the police. It is alleged that on 24 January 2022, Dr Odewole was sentenced a fine of £660 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for six months and.
It is also alleged that, on 19 July 2022, at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court, Dr Odewole was convicted of failing to provide a breath sample, driving whilst disqualified and driving without insurance. It is alleged that Dr Odewole was sentenced to 120 hours of unpaid work and disqualified from driving for 18 months.
It is further alleged that Dr Odewole failed to notify the GMC without delay that he had been convicted and in 2022 made dishonest declarations in respect of his convictions to his employer.We expect parts of this case to be heard in private.
- Decisions
- All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.
- Journalists
- 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.