(The Committee on Professional Performance of the GMC) The distinction drawn in Krippendorf between a practitioner’s current competence and past performance was not to be taken too far. The purpose of the assessment was not to punish the practitioner, but to protect the public. The standard of proof was accordingly the civil standard of balance of probabilities. The Board considered the role of members of the GMC sitting as panel members of its Committee on Professional Performance. It was argued that the presence of GMC members on the CPP panels was contrary to the domestic doctrine of apparent bias or to ECHR article 6.
Held: Lord Hope pointed out that there is no general principle of Convention jurisprudence which prevents such self-regulation and that everything depended on all the relevant circumstances. As to the relevant rules and the protection afforded by them, their Lordships were satisfied that the CPP met the Convention requirements.
Judges:
Lord Rodger of Earsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Sir Phillip Otton
Citations:
[2003] UKHL 59, Times 29-Sep-2003, [2004] Lloyd’s Rep Med 44, [2004] HRLR 8, [2003] 1 WLR 2259
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Dr Manjula Krippendorf v The General Medical Council PC 24-Nov-2000
(Reasons for report) When the Committee of Professional Performance was considering the standard of professional practice of a doctor, the committee should consider his actual record of practice as disclosed from the records of his practice, and . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – McAllister v General Medical Council PC 3-Feb-1993
English law had been correctly applied in GMC disciplinary proceedings even though they were heard in Scotland. . .
Cited – Le Compte, Van Leuven And De Meyere v Belgium ECHR 23-Jun-1981
Hudoc The Court was faced with a disciplinary sanction imposed on doctors which resulted in their suspension for periods between 6 weeks and 3 months: ‘Unlike certain other disciplinary sanctions that might have . .
Cited – Bryan v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Nov-1995
Bryan was a farmer at Warrington in Cheshire. He built two brick buildings on land in a conservation area without planning permission and the planning authority served an enforcement notice for their demolition. He appealed on grounds (a) (that . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal and Another CA 19-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions, Human Rights, Natural Justice
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.185170