A complaint to the General Medical Council should be heard in public unless there was some particular and pressing circumstance. Openness was required to maintain the confidence of the public in the profession, and complainants had a legitimate expectation of a public investigation. Where a practitioner continued in practice, the screeners should be reluctant to disallow continuance of a complaint where there was any doubt at all about the need to proceed.
Citations:
Times 29-Jun-2000, Gazette 06-Jul-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 361, [2000] 1 WLR 2209
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Henshall v General Medical Council and others CA 13-Dec-2005
The claimant had lodged a complaint against a medical practitioner. The preliminary proceedings committee had accepted evidence from the doctor, but had not given the complainant opportunity to see it and comment upon it.
Held: the rules must . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Health Professions
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85265