PC (The Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The appellant, a locum general practitioner, had been charged with failing to examine a patient adequately and take prompt action to refer her to hospital. At the hearing before the Committee he became aware of newspaper reports of a previous finding against him of serious professional misconduct in 1987, which had led to him being admonished. One member of the Committee had read the article, and mentioned it to others. The GMC Press Office had contributed to the disclosure by wrongly informing the newspaper that it was safe for them to refer to the previous appearance. The hearing had continued, resulting in a finding of serious professional misconduct. The Committee had been advised by the legal assessor that the previous finding had nothing to do with the present charges and should exercise no influence on their decision. It was said that the proceedings should have been stayed on the basis of the apparent bias.
Held: The Board referred to the special systems established for regulating doctors’ professional conduct. The GMC had no legal power to prevent publication of information in the public domain. He said that there was no dispute as to the test of ‘apparent bias’ which was whether the circumstances ‘would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the tribunal was biased.’ Such an observer would be assumed to have knowledge of the GMC’s ‘long and well-established system with statutory backing, operated by those selected and elected to the task, and supported by a comprehensive appeal system . . ‘. ‘Their Lordships feel they can safely say that there was no danger here of any prejudice to the doctor: this was a well-established quasi-professional tribunal which had been directed in plain terms to pay no attention to the previous conviction because it would give them no assistance, a direction reinforced by the fact that it dealt with events more than 20 years before. The experience their Lordships have of the jury system is that juries are faithful to their oath and abide by the instructions they are given. There are rare circumstances (and this case is not one) where the judge feels that the direction he is considering giving (for example to ignore some exceptionally prejudicial piece of evidence which they knew) might involve the jury in such ‘mental gymnastics’ before they could accept what loyalty to their oath required of them that the risk could not be taken, and the jury would have to be discharged. But here it is difficult to see how the appellant’s conduct of 20 years ago could affect the fundamental point of credibility the committee here had to consider.’
Judges:
Sir Dennis Henry
Citations:
[2002] UKPC 64
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Regina v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Guinness Plc CA 1989
The court asked about the standard of decision making at which a court could intervene: ‘Irrationality, at least in the sense of failing to take account of relevant factors or taking account of irrelevant factors, is a difficult concept in the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Mahfouz v The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council CA 5-Mar-2004
The doctor requested members of the disciplinary tribunal to recuse themselves when, after the first day of the hearing they saw prejudicial material in newspapers which material was not in evidence. They had further declined to allow an adjournment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.179189