Blog Post
Adverse Inferences: A Watershed Moment
R(Kuzmin) v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 2129 (Admin)In a clear and useful judgment, the Divisional Court has put beyond doubt a longstanding question in establishing that professional
Blog Post
How is public confidence maintained when fitness to practise decisions are made?
On 11 June the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care published its response to the Williams Review. The Williams Review had considered the law surrounding gross negligence manslaughter in healthcare and was triggered after the highly controversial case of Dr Bawa-Garba.
Blog Post
Sait v GMC – a reminder that serious allegations must be put to respondents during cross-examination
In this recent case, Mostyn J re-affirmed the long-standing principle that respondents at regulatory hearings should be afforded an opportunity to explain or defend themselves during cross-examination
Blog Post
When should disciplinary proceedings be stayed after procedural errors?
A recent High Court decision considered when procedural errors in a disciplinary proceeding will require a hearing to be stayed. While the Court relied on accepted case law, it appears to have set a high standard for when a stay will be appropriate and has given considerable discretion to the tribunals.
Blog Post
Adjournment applications on grounds of ill-health must be carefully considered
Hayat v General Medical Council [2017] EWHC 1899 (Admin) A recent High Court decision serves as a warning to all Tribunals to consider and evaluate with great care any medical evidence they receive pertaining to an adjournment on grounds of ill-health. If an individual is declared unfit for work, it is likely that they will also be unfit to withstand the demands and rigour of a disciplinary hearing.
Blog Post
How does a registrant's retirement affect the assessment of their fitness to practise?
Clarke v General Optical Council [2017] EWHC 521 (Admin) The judgment of Fraser J gives guidance on the extent to which a Committee should consider factors such as prospective retirement when assessing fitness to practise and sanction. The General Optical Council's Fitness to Practise Review Committee's decision to erase Mr C from the register was 'plainly and obviously wrong' because it failed to take account of Mr C's retirement, his sale of practice and his undertaking never to return to practice.
Blog Post
Publication of disciplinary decision can be sufficient sanction
Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWHC 109 (Admin) The Appellant held the role of "Super head" of five formerly under-performing schools ("the Schools"). This case arises from his relationship with IT company C2 Technology Limited ("C2"), which in the period 2008 to 2013, received payment for services of more than £1 million from the Schools. The Appellant had not disclosed the fact that he had acted as company secretary to C2 between 1999 and 2004 and that his friend and partner was the company director. There was a clear, undisclosed conflict in existence and this relationship was only identified following an internal audit in 2013.
Blog Post
GMC Confidentiality guidance
Written by Hannah Blake, Trainee. On 25 January 2017 the GMC refreshed its guidance on confidentiality. The guidance Confidentiality: good practice in handling patient information will come into force on 25 April 2017 replacing the current 2009 guidance. Whilst the principles are unchanged it provides clarification to the 2009 guidance and is a welcome opportunity to look again at confidentiality and the principles behind it that affect healthcare regulators.
Blog Post
When is erasure a proportionate sanction when there is a finding of dishonesty?
Written by trainee, Laura Penny Abbas v General Medical Council [2017]EWHC 51 (Admin) The recent decision in Abbas provides a useful overview on the general approach to sanction where there is a finding of dishonesty.
Blog Post
To what extent are regulators obliged to refer complaints to their Investigating Committee?
R (Oriaku) v NMC [2017] EWHC 235 In this case, the Claimant was removed from the register due to an incorrect entry; she went on to complain that other registrants had not been treated in the same way. The Administrative Court found that, as a complainant O might, in principle, have the right to bring a claim if her complaints were not appropriately dealt with, however in order for a complaint to be referred to the Investigating Committee it must amount to an allegation.