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 mitigation, and was not relevant when deciding whether the allegation was true. With respect, the Board of the Privy Council in Rao and Silver had misread the case of Preiss, where a clear distinction had been made between evidence in support of the charge and evidence put forward in mitigation.
Judges:
Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Jacob
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 250, Times 18-Apr-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3488, [2005] 2 All ER 970
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Dr Silver v The General Medical Council PC 14-Apr-2003
(General Medical Council) The appellant appealed a finding of serious professional misconduct and his suspension from the medical register for twelve months. Over a nine day period despite prompts from the son, a daughter and two other health care . .
Distinguished – Dr Narasinga Mukunda Rao vThe General Medical Council PC 9-Dec-2002
PC (The Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The misconduct was a single incident. There was undoubted negligence but something more was required to constitute serious professional misconduct and to attach . .
Applied – Preiss v General Dental Council PC 17-Jul-2001
(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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.223496