(Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC) The procedures of the General Dental Council were in breach of the right to a fair trial, insofar as the same person might both carry out the preliminary stages of an investigation, and later be involved in the hearing of the complaint itself. In this case the chairman had also made the decision to present the complaint. The board of the Privy Council had the power to hear appeals against findings of misconduct, as well as suspensions, and could substitute a an admonition for a suspension. The existence of this power was necessary in order to correct the weaknesses in the current disciplinary system, and the power included where necessary the power to deal with issues of fact as well as law and discretion. Serious professional misconduct does not require moral turpitude. Gross professional negligence can fall within it. Something more is required than a degree of negligence enough to give rise to civil liability but not calling for the opprobrium that inevitably attaches to the disciplinary offence.
Judges:
Bingham of Cornhill L, Cooke of Thorndon L, Millett L
Citations:
Times 14-Aug-2001, Gazette 31-Aug-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1926, [2001] UKPC 36, No 63 of 2000
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Cited by:
Cited – Gupta v The General Medical Council PC 18-Dec-2001
(The Health Committee of the GMC) A doctor had been found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council. She appealed on the basis that they had not given reasons for the factual basis . .
Cited – Dr Thomas Amadeus Keiran Norton v The General Medical Council PC 11-Feb-2002
The appellant doctor had practised in plastic and related surgery, particularly liposuction. The complaints against him related to a failure to supervise his staff, wrongful delegation, and lack of care. His name had been erased from the register, . .
Cited – Darby v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The solicitor appealed findings of misconduct. He had acted for a builder who complained about breaches of confidentiality and a failure to provide written information on costs.
Held: The appeal was by way of a rehearing (Preiss), but should . .
Applied – Regina (on the Application of Jennifer Campbell) v The General Medical Council CA 11-Mar-2005
The Council complained that when assessing disciplinary charges against the doctor, they had taken into account when looking at his guilt, his professional reputation.
Held: A doctor’s reputation was relevant only when considering any . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions, Human Rights, Constitutional, Health Professions
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136179
