Meath surgeon jailed for fraud and staging burglary fighting to save his medical career

A CO MEATH orthopaedic surgeon jailed in the UK for staging a burglary and committing mortgage fraud worth almost £1m could be facing the end of his medical career as he awaits the outcome of a fitness to practice tribunal in Manchester.

A member of a well-known local medical family, Anthony McGrath, was sentenced to eight years in prison after filing a phoney report to police that the house he and his family were renting on a country estate in Bedfordshire had been burgled in 2015 and valuable antiques stolen. Police also charged him in relation to fraudulent mortgage applications where falsified documents were submitted to obtain mortgages on two properties.

At Luton Crown Court in January 2019, following a four month trial, Mr McGrath was convicted of four counts of fraud and one for perverting the course of justice, for offences in 2012 and 2015 and was handed down an eight year sentence. He was released from prison in July of 2025.

However, before Mr McGrath could go back to work as an orthopaedic surgeon, something he describes as his “vocation”, he first faced a fitness to practice tribunal, triggered due to his conviction and custodial sentence.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) sat from 29th June to 3rd July this year in Manchester and after lengthy submissions from the General Medical Council and from Mr McGrath himself, it concluded that the surgeon's fitness to practice had been impaired and found that the case fell within the high range of seriousness.

The final part of that tribunal is scheduled to take place on 22nd October when the MPTS will decide what sanction should be imposed. At best, Mr McGrath will be allowed to practice under strict conditions. He could be suspended for a period or ultimately the MPTS could erase Mr McGrath from the medical register in the UK, spelling the end of the career he built up there over many years.

Mr McGrath is a son of the late Joseph McGrath, who was an orthopaedic surgeon at Navan Hospital, while his late mother Jennifer was a physiotherapist at the same hospital. The family lived at Somerville House, Balrath, outside Navan, a substantial Georgian property, which remains in the family. He studied medicine and has qualifications both as a GP and as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon.

Mr McGrath was working at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital at Stanmore at the time of the staged burglary which subsequently led to his arrest, conviction and jail term.

After being released from prison, Mr McGrath applied to the MPTS for his suspension to be lifted pending the outcome of the fitness to practice tribunal and it initially allowed him to practice with restrictions but later reversed this decision and suspended him pending conclusion of the tribunal proceedings.

Mr McGrath wants to rebuild his life and put the past behind him but is fearing the worst in terms of sanction which could see him struck off the medical register. He is keen to work in Ireland but cannot begin this process until after the UK proceedings conclude.

The fitness to practice tribunal arose because of his conviction and the first part of the tribunal, found that the allegation that he was convicted of four counts of fraud and one of perverting the course of justice, was proven. The second part which recently took place, was to determine if Mr McGrath's fitness to practice was impaired as a result.

Because of the conviction, the General Medical Council alleged that Mr McGrath's fitness to practice was impaired and over the course of the tribunal, it outlined the reasons why it felt his impairment was serious and warranted sanction, while Dr McGrath submitted that he had already faced significant punitive consequences, and that in light of his remorse, insight and clinical competence, his fitness to practice was not presently impaired.

Counsel for GMC argued that the history of the case demonstrated a reluctance on Mr McGrath's part to accept full responsibility and also contended that he had repeatedly sought to blame others for his predicament.

The GMC sought to include in evidence the ruling from the court of appeal dated 25th July 2025, relating to the criminal case. This was opposed Dr McGrath who claimed that it was not relevant. However the tribunal admitted this document into evidence

Mr McGrath supplied written statements and also gave oral evidence at the hearing. Three witnesses gave evidence on behalf of Mr McGrath and several testimonials were also submitted in support of his return to work.

Mr McGrath submitted that he accepted his past wrongdoing, learned from it and taken steps to ensure it would not reoccur, and that in light of his remorse, insight and clinical competence, his fitness to practice was not presently impaired.

He argued that the Tribunal should consider the full context of his conduct, his personal circumstances, and the steps he had taken since the offences.

He maintained that he did not seek to go behind his convictions and accepted that they stood as matters of record. He urged the tribunal to focus on his conduct as it now stood, rather than on the worst interpretation of events presented during the criminal proceedings.

He submitted that he had already faced significant punitive consequences, including a lengthy custodial sentence and the personal and professional consequences that followed, and these had prompted genuine reflection and change.

Mr McGrath submitted references from colleagues and friends, which he said demonstrated his longstanding commitment to patient care and his competence as a clinician. He submitted that these references showed that he remained a safe doctor and that his clinical abilities had not been called into question at any stage.

The tribunal began by considering whether Dr McGrath's fitness to practice was impaired by reason of his conviction. It was satisfied as a result of this being a case of conviction, there was a legal basis for consideration of impairment.

It then went on to consider where on the spectrum of seriousness the allegation lies. MPTS guidance notes that allegations that are likely to fall at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness include but are not limited to a criminal conviction or other court sanction resulting in a custodial sentence.

The tribunal determined that the conviction did not fall at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness and “considered that Dr McGrath was imprisoned for eight years for a fraud that exposed financial institutions to very significant financial loss, which increased its seriousness significantly.

“Further Dr McGrath had lied to the police, perverting the course of justice and made various false statements”.

It took into account that his conduct, which had ultimately resulted in a criminal conviction, “continued over a significant period of time, was persistent and repeated, was premeditated and showed a reckless disregard for professional standards” and that these were all significant aggravating features.

The tribunal did note that the incident occurred outside Dr McGrath's clinical practice and there was no evidence that patient safety had been directly affected by the conduct. It bore in mind Dr McGrath's submissions that he was in marital difficulty, was struggling with events in his personal life and in some financial difficulty at the time.

However the tribunal found that some events occurred prior to his dishonesty and could not solely account for the period over which he had been dishonest, the lengths to which he went to pursue his dishonest claims and how he had conducted himself in criminal and appeal proceedings that only ended as recently as July 2025.

It also bore in mind a previous fitness to practice concern from 2012 relating to a false reference and misleading documentation which resulted to a finding of dishonesty, impairment and ultimately amounted to a warning.

“Dr McGrath's offending which was the subject of criminal charges was less than 12 months after the imposition of the MPTS warning and amounted to a flagrant disregard of the trust that the 2012 tribunal had put in him,” the determination stated.

“The tribunal considered that Dr McGrath's behaviour had shown a flagrant disregard for the law and that he had not behaved with integrity, both of which were and are expectations of medical professionals.

“Taking these matters into account, the Tribunal concluded that the conviction represented a serious departure from the standards expected of a registered doctor, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, when viewed together, supported its assessment that the case fell within the high range of seriousness.”

The tribunal was of the view that any of remorse that Dr McGrath had demonstrated was self-serving and did not amount to him taking accountability of his actions.

It did however, note that this was not a case which occurred within clinical practice and patients had not been involved and was of the view that there was no evidence that Dr McGrath’s conviction gave rise to a direct risk to patient safety.

“Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal determined that public confidence in the profession required a finding of impairment. The Tribunal considered that members of the public would be gravely concerned if a doctor who was convicted of fraud exposing financial institutions to a risk of almost £1million in loss, was found culpable for significant dishonesty and perverting the course of justice, had offended whilst subject to the MPT warning for his misconduct, and who was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment was found not to be impaired.

“It concluded that a finding of no impairment would fail to adequately to mark the seriousness of the conduct and would undermine confidence in both the medical profession and its regulator.”

“Taking all circumstances into account, the tribunal determined that the level of current and ongoing risk to public protection was high and therefore determined that Dr McGrath's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his conviction.”

The last part of the tribunal scheduled for 22nd-23rd October will deal with the sanction.