Lord Diplock said: ‘The purpose of disciplinary proceedings against a dentist who has been convicted of a criminal offence by a court of law is not to punish him a second time for the same offence but to protect the public who may come to him as patients and to maintain the high standards and good reputation of an honourable profession.’
Judges:
Lord Diplock
Citations:
[1976] 2 All ER 334, [1976] 1 WLR 330
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Redgrave) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2003
The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181629