The court was asked whether in a complaint under the Act, conduct before the Act could be considered.
Held: The Tribunal could rely on misconduct which had taken place, or the relevant provider’s opinion had been formed, before the commencement of the Act. Stanley Burnton J said: ‘If the 2000 Act operates unfairly, the court will seek to interpret it restrictively, on the basis that Parliament must be deemed to have wanted any unfairness to be minimised . . The 2000 Act . . is clearly intended as a measure to protect a vulnerable section of the public, and I should be reluctant to conclude that even obviously dangerous misconduct before [its] . . Commencement . . could not lead to inclusion in the POVA list.’
Judges:
Stanley Burnton J
Citations:
[2008] QB 422
Statutes:
Care Standards Act 2000 86(3), European Convention on Huma Rights5 6
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health CA 2-Jan-2008
The care worker’s appeal failed. The system for disciplining care workers and placing them on lists was required to be human rights compliant. Lord Justice May said: ‘There is an obvious and unchallenged public interest in having an appropriate . .
Cited – Joyce v Secretary of State for Health Admn 1-Aug-2008
The claimant appealed against a decision of the Care Standards Tribunal regarding misconduct, and being placed on the list to prevent her working with vulnerable adults. She was said to have fallen asleep while on night duty. The court considered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions, Human Rights
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.279860
