The applicant sought to appeal against findings of professional misconduct as a nurse.
Held: Buckley J set out what was meant by a rehearing within the rules governing the Council’s disciplinary procedures: ‘Rehearing is to be understood as it is under Order 59 which governs appeals to the Court of Appeal when exercising its civil jurisdiction. On such appeals the Court is always conscious that it has not seen or heard the witnesses and particularly so in cases which turn to any significant extent on their credibility. We were referred to the unreported case of Slater v.UKCC 16 May 1988, which confirmed that in appeals from disciplinary tribunals of professional bodies, a further consideration arises, namely, as the members of such tribunals will be chosen for their knowledge and experience, in particular, of the rules and practices of their profession, they will be singularly well placed to judge matters, where such knowledge and experience is an advantageous. Thus, their decisions are not to be interfered with lightly.
It is for that reason that one finds various expressions in the cases, … such as ‘this court is loathe to interfere with those decisions unless it is clear that the decision which was come to was a wrong one’ or that it will only do so if the decision was ‘plainly wrong’. These expressions indicate, in my judgment, that in carrying out its appellate duty, the court will bear in mind the advantages enjoyed by the tribunal. They do not absolve the court from its duty of enquiry.’
Staughton LJ said: ‘The appellate court must give full weight to the fact that, unlike the tribunal from which the appeal comes, it has not seen and heard the witnesses. But having done that, the appellate court is still entitled to reach different conclusions of fact, if satisfied that it is right to do so.
Secondly, this court on such an appeal must bear in mind that the members of the Professional Conduct Committee have relevant professional skills, which we do not have. We must give full weight to that when considering matters of professional behaviour. But once again we are entitled, having done so, to reach different conclusions of fact on such matters if we are nevertheless satisfied that it is right to do so.’
Judges:
Buckley J, Staughton LJ
Citations:
Unreported, 19 February 1993
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council; Balamoody v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court Admn 10-Jun-1998
The applicant had been convicted of offences relating to the management of his nursing home, and had been struck off the Register of Nurses.
Held: It was no defence to the criminal charges that a member of staff had failed in her duties. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.277520