Irwin J was asked to elucidate the meaning of the phrase ‘unacceptable professional conduct’ within the 1993 Act. No authority was cited to the learned judge dealing, specifically, with that phrase in that Act but Counsel for the Appellant placed considerable reliance on authorities concerning legislation governing the medical and dental professions in which ‘misconduct’ was one of the bases upon which the regulator could find fitness to practise impaired. Having considered those authorities Irwin J answered: ‘In my judgment, the starting point for interpreting the Osteopaths Act 1993 must be the language of the Act itself. Although one notes that ‘unacceptable professional conduct’ has the definition in section 20(2): ‘conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered osteopath’, there is an unhelpful circularity to the definition. Indeed one might not unfairly comment that the statutory definition adds little clarity. The critical term is ‘conduct’. Whichever dictionary definition is consulted, the leading sense of the term ‘conduct’ is behaviour, or the manner of conducting oneself. It seems to me that at first blush this simply does imply, at least to some degree, moral blameworthiness. Whether the finding is ‘misconduct’ or ‘unacceptable professional conduct’ there is in my view an implication of moral blameworthiness, and a degree of opprobrium is likely to be conveyed to the ordinary intelligent citizen. That is an observation not merely about the natural meaning of the language, but about the likely effect of the finding in such a case as this, given the obligatory reporting of a finding under the Act.’
Irwin J
[2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin), [2012] WLR(D) 314, [2013] 1 WLR 1307, (2013) 129 BMLR 162, [2013] Med LR 18
Bailii
Osteopaths Act 1993
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Harford v The Nursing and Midwifery Council Admn 10-Apr-2013
The appellant challenged a finding that her fitness to practice had been impaired by misconduct and the attachment of a conditions of practice order effective for six months.
Held: The Panel had applied the correct test. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.465681