PC Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC. The applicant had been suspended from practice. He had been struck off in Australia, and moved to the UK to practice. The GMC sought to suspend him because of the findings in Australia. After his initial suspension new procedures came in, and an interim order was made imposing conditions as to his practice. Later, when the case came before the full committee further complaints were made as to his failure to follow the conditions.
Held: Despite the existence of some doubts about the finding of professional misconduct in Australia, that shown in England was not in doubt. The erasure of his name was appropriate, and would not be set aside.
Lord Hope said: ‘In the appellant’s case the effect of the committee’s order is that his erasure is for life but it has been said many times that the Professional Conduct Committee is the body which is best equipped to determine questions as to the sanction that should be imposed in the public interest for serious professional misconduct. This is because the assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct is essentially a matter for the committee in the light of its experience. It is the body which is best qualified to judge what measures are required to maintain the standards and reputation of the profession.
That is not to say that their lordships may not intervene if there are good grounds for doing so. But in this case their lordships are satisfied that there are no such grounds. This is a case of such a grave nature that the finding that the appellant was unfit to practice was inevitable. The committee was entitled to give greater weight to the public interest and to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession than to the consequences to the appellant of the imposition of the penalty. Their lordships are quite unable to say that the sanction of erasure which the committee decided to impose in this case while undoubtedly severe was wrong or unjustified.’
Judges:
Lord Hope of Craighead Sir Christopher Slade Sir Philip Otton
Citations:
[2002] UKPC 36
Links:
Statutes:
Medical Act 1983 42(3), Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1803)
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Cited by:
Cited – Mubarak v General Medical Council Admn 20-Nov-2008
The doctor appealed against a finding against him of professional misconduct in the form of a sexualised examination of a female patient.
Held: The reasons given were adequate, and the response of erasure from the register was the only one . .
Cited – Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council SC 14-Dec-2016
The pharmacist had been removed from register the for a year after findings of domestic abuse. The court now considered what inquiry was required on an application for a continuation of that suspension.
Held: The different appeals of both the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.174495