The Council appealed a decision of the respondent saying that the disciplinary measures imposed on the Doctor were insufficient.
Held: A reference to the Court from the tribunal operated as an appeal. It was therefore for the court to decide whether the decision of the tribunal was wrong, but whether it was wrong was to be judged against the background to the decision, which would include the primary legislation. The court should vary a disposition only if the order was unduly lenient. The court had the power to re-sentence without remitting the case to the tribunal, and might do do where there was no choice of penalty. In this case whilst the direction of the committee was unduly lenient it was not necessary to impose suspension.
Judges:
Mr Justice Collins
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 1850 (Admin), Times 01-Sep-2004
Links:
Statutes:
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 29
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
per incuriam – Dr Giuseppe Ruscill, Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v The General Medical Council and Another, The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Profesionals, The Nursing and Midwifery Council, Truscott CA 20-Oct-2004
The Council sought to refer to the High Court decisions to acquit the doctors of professional misconduct. The doctors argued that the power only existed for lenient sentences.
Held: The power to refer for undue leniency included the situation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199800
