Site icon swarb.co.uk

Roylance v The General Medical Council (No 2): PC 24 Mar 1999

(Medical Act 1983) Dr Roylance was the chief executive of a hospital in which there had been excessive mortality rates of children who underwent cardiac surgery and had failed to take steps to deal with the problem.
Held: A doctor who carried out purely administrative functions within a hospital still had a doctor’s duties and was not entitled to disregard his medical responsibility. The Court would not enquire into private deliberations of judicial panel. Misconduct involved acts or omissions which fell short of what was proper in the circumstances and that the standard of propriety might often be found by reference to the rules and standards normally required to be followed. It must be serious and must be linked to the profession of medicine. He pointed out that conduct removed from the practice of medicine might qualify if it was of a sufficiently immoral or outrageous or disgraceful character. This was because the public reputation of and public confidence in the profession could be adversely affected.

Judges:

Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 26-Mar-1999, [1999] UKPC 16, Appeal No 49 of 1998, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 139, [2000] 1 AC 311

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC, PC

Statutes:

Medical Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDr 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 . .
CitedMeadow v General Medical Council Admn 17-Feb-2006
The appellant challenged being struck off the medical register. He had given expert evidence in a criminal case which was found misleading and to have contributed to a wrongful conviction for murder.
Held: The evidence though mistaken was . .
CitedHarford v The Nursing and Midwifery Council Admn 10-Apr-2013
The appellant challenged a finding that her fitness to practice had been impaired by misconduct and the attachment of a conditions of practice order effective for six months.
Held: The Panel had applied the correct test. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159348

Exit mobile version