Fayed Survivors Demand Inquiry Into Medical Regulator

Published: 29 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Survivors of sexual abuse allegations involving former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed are calling for an investigation into the General Medical Council over claims that concerns about doctors linked to him were not acted upon when they were first reported almost a decade ago.

The survivors say the medical regulator should form part of any public inquiry into the wider allegations surrounding Fayed, arguing that failures to investigate doctors who allegedly shared sensitive medical information with him may have allowed abusive behaviour to continue.

The renewed scrutiny follows the GMC’s decision to take action against two doctors who are accused of involvement in the handling of women’s sexual health information connected to Fayed. The regulator has imposed interim restrictions on the doctors’ ability to practise while investigations continue.

The developments have revived questions about an earlier complaint made to the GMC in 2017 concerning Dr Wendy Snell, a doctor employed by Fayed. Snell died in 2022 and was therefore no longer alive when hundreds of women subsequently came forward with allegations of sexual assault against the former Harrods owner.

One of those who complained to the GMC was Pelham Spong, who said she was 23 when she was subjected to a sexual health examination in 2008 during an interview process for a job associated with Fayed.

Spong alleges that the examination included intimate testing that she had not expected as part of a recruitment process. She also alleges that Fayed subsequently questioned her about a sexually transmitted infection after being given information about her medical results.

According to her complaint to the GMC, Snell had assured her that the information from the examination would remain confidential.

Spong said the experience left her feeling humiliated and deeply uncomfortable that a potential employer appeared to have access to highly personal information about her health.

She formally complained to the GMC in 2017, raising concerns not only about the doctor’s conduct but also about what she described as a wider pattern involving Fayed and medical examinations of women seeking employment.

The GMC subsequently told Spong that it was not considered to be in the wider public interest to investigate Snell. The regulator also said it did not have powers to determine whether a gynaecological examination should have been part of a recruitment process.

Spong now argues that the response represented a missed opportunity to examine potentially serious concerns.

She has said that the information provided to the GMC should have prompted further investigation and believes that the regulator’s failure to act at the time meant that opportunities to protect other women were lost.

Spong also reported her experience to the Metropolitan police in October 2017. The police obtained a copy of her GMC complaint during initial inquiries but ultimately took no further action.

She has argued that both the police and the medical regulator should now be examined as part of a public inquiry into the allegations surrounding Fayed.

Fayed died in 2023. The following year, hundreds of women publicly described allegations of sexual assault and other abusive behaviour involving him over several decades.

The allegations have prompted scrutiny of the former Harrods owner’s conduct, the environment surrounding his businesses and the responses of institutions that may have received information about concerns involving him.

The role of doctors is now emerging as another area of scrutiny.

One woman, identified as Joan in the reporting, has alleged that she was raped in the 1990s by Salah Fayed, Mohamed Al Fayed’s brother, who died in 2010. She alleges that the incident occurred after she underwent a sexual health examination by Dr Ann Coxon.

Joan claims that, before the alleged rape, Salah Fayed called Coxon while Joan was present and placed the call on speaker. She alleges that Coxon then disclosed the results of her sexual health tests during the conversation.

Joan said she recorded her account of the incident in an affidavit and retained documentation relating to the medical examination.

She believes that earlier action by the GMC could potentially have led to greater scrutiny of the conduct of doctors associated with the Fayed family.

Her criticism centres on what she considers to have been a failure to escalate serious allegations to the police when concerns were first presented to the regulator.

Another woman, identified as Judith, has also described an alleged experience involving Dr Snell and Mohamed Al Fayed.

Judith says she underwent a full gynaecological examination, including sexually transmitted disease testing, during a recruitment process connected to employment with the Fayed family. She described the experience as humiliating and said she was shocked that such an examination was considered necessary.

Judith alleges that Fayed subsequently groped her.

She said the experience had lasting consequences for her relationship with medical examinations and that she has struggled with smear tests since the alleged incident. She believes the episode affected her willingness to undergo routine healthcare.

Rather than seeking an apology from the GMC, Judith has called for stronger oversight of private doctors. She argues that doctors working outside conventional NHS structures should be subject to effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms.

She also supports calls for a public inquiry that would examine the role of the GMC alongside other organisations whose actions or inaction may have affected women who have made allegations against Fayed.

The calls come as the GMC investigates two surviving doctors connected to allegations involving women and Fayed.

The regulator has placed interim conditions on the practice of Dr Coxon and another doctor while its investigations continue. Such restrictions are temporary measures and do not by themselves establish wrongdoing.

Coxon has previously denied carrying out sexual health examinations on Harrods staff. She has declined to comment on the latest allegations.

The GMC has said it is taking the allegations seriously and remains in contact with relevant authorities, including the Metropolitan police.

In a statement, the regulator described the reports of sexual abuse associated with Fayed as shocking and said it was investigating doctors who had been employed by him.

The GMC said it would take appropriate action if investigations identified concerns about an individual doctor’s fitness to practise. It also said it could not provide details about individual investigations because of confidentiality requirements.

For survivors, however, the current investigations raise a question about why concerns were not examined more fully when they first reached the regulator.

Emma Jones, a solicitor representing several women who have made allegations against Fayed, said the GMC’s recent action was significant but argued that it had come too late.

She said the allegations reported to the regulator years earlier were sufficiently serious to warrant investigation, particularly where they involved claims that doctors had conducted sexual health examinations and allegedly passed information to Fayed without patients’ permission.

The solicitor has also supported calls for a public inquiry, arguing that an investigation should examine institutional responses as well as the alleged conduct of individuals.

The controversy highlights the particular sensitivity of medical information in cases involving alleged abuse. Patients are generally entitled to expect that information about their health will be handled confidentially and used only for legitimate medical purposes. Allegations that such information was shared without consent therefore raise serious questions about professional conduct and patient protection.

The cases described by the survivors also raise broader questions about medical examinations conducted in employment-related settings, particularly where the individual being examined may have limited power compared with a prospective employer.

For survivors, the issue is not confined to what allegedly happened during individual encounters. They are also seeking answers about whether institutions had opportunities to recognise warning signs and whether those opportunities were missed.

The GMC’s current investigations may provide findings about the conduct of the doctors involved. However, determining whether wider institutional failures contributed to the continuation of alleged abuse would require a broader examination than an individual professional disciplinary process.

That is why survivors and their representatives are calling for a public inquiry.

Such an inquiry could potentially examine the handling of complaints by different institutions, the responsibilities of private medical practitioners, the relationship between doctors and powerful employers, and the mechanisms available for escalating allegations involving potential criminal conduct.

The question of accountability has become particularly significant because Fayed is no longer alive and therefore cannot face investigation or legal proceedings personally. Attention has consequently shifted towards the experiences of survivors and the institutions that may have encountered warning signs during his lifetime.

The allegations made by the women remain allegations, and the doctors involved have not been found guilty of criminal offences in relation to the claims described here. The GMC’s interim restrictions are part of ongoing regulatory investigations rather than final findings.

Nevertheless, the survivors argue that the passage of time should not prevent scrutiny of how complaints were handled.

Their central demand is for an examination of whether institutions responded appropriately to information available to them and whether different action might have protected other women.

As the GMC continues its investigations, the debate over its past handling of complaints is likely to remain part of the wider discussion surrounding the Fayed allegations.

For the women who have come forward, the issue is ultimately about more than disciplinary action against individual doctors. They want to know whether systems designed to protect patients and the public responded adequately when serious concerns were brought to their attention.

That question is now increasingly being placed at the centre of calls for a public inquiry into the wider Fayed scandal.