The doctor appealed against the erasure of his name from the register of medical practitioners after a finding of serious professional misconduct. There had been earlier similar findings, but based on different allegations.
Held: The doctor’s appeal failed. Of the three sets of allegations, one had not been shown to the required standards, and the second would not of itself justify the erasure. The third allegation involved a finding of oppressive behaviour in interviewing a bereaved parent. The panel had been justified in reaching the conclusion it had. ‘Public confidence in the science of expert assessment in those cases where serious issues of child protection were indeed raised would be undermined, if egregious behaviour of the kind under consideration here when combined with the lack of insight into or acknowledgment of its nature and extent was considered to be compatible with continued registration as a medical practitioner. ‘
Blake J
[2009] EWHC 1155 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wickramsinghe v United Kingdom ECHR 9-Dec-1997
(Commission) Although professional disciplinary proceedings may be conducted to the criminal standard of proof, that does not make them ‘akin to criminal proceedings’. ‘in general’, disciplinary proceedings are not ‘criminal’ for the purpose of . .
Cited – Gupta v The General Medical Council PC 18-Dec-2001
(The Health Committee of the GMC) A doctor had been found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council. She appealed on the basis that they had not given reasons for the factual basis . .
Cited – Cheatle v General Medical Council Admn 27-Mar-2009
. .
See Also – Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Medical Council and Professor Southall Admn 14-Apr-2005
The doctor, a famous pediatrician had been criticised for his trenchant views concerning the probable criminal responsibility of many parents for the cot deaths of their children. The Council referred as too lenient a sentence of being debarred from . .
Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
Cited – Meadow 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 . .
Cited – Phipps v General Medical Council CA 12-Apr-2006
Wall LJ considered the need for the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) GMC to give clear reasons for its decisions against the background of human rights law, and concluded that the principles enunciated in English were of universal application . .
Cited by:
Appeal From – Southall v The General Medical Council CA 20-Apr-2010
. .
Appeal from – Southall v The General Medical Council CA 4-May-2010
The doctor had appealed against an order striking him from the register of medical practitioners. The court having decided that the order could not stand, now considered the appropriate order to make.
Held: It was appropriate to remit the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.346313