Ethics Violation in UK Law

Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances. First, it is qualified by the word "professional" which links the misconduct to the profession of medicine.

Precisely what that link may be and how it may occur is a matter of circumstances. The closest link is where the practitioner is actually engaged on his practice with a patient. Cases here may occur of a serious failure to meet the necessary standards of practice, such as gross neglect of patients or culpable carelessness in their treatment, or the taking advantage of a professional relationship for personal gratification.

He was both a registered medical practitioner and chief executive of a hospital. In each capacity he had a duty to care for the safety and well being of the patients. As a registered medical practitioner he had the general obligation to care for the sick. There was a sufficiently close link with the profession of medicine in the case of the appellant as chief executive of a hospital in respect of patients at the hospital.

RM described it as a "betrayal". It seems to us that it was a gross betrayal which would in any event be an aggravating feature. In our view the Sentencing Council did not intend that every case of rape within an established relationship should be treated as a breach of trust. Rather, the change was designed so as to include circumstances where the offender may not hold a formal position in relation to the victim, but they have abused the trust engendered by their status and/or standing.

This, as I understand it, was essentially the point which their Lordships thought it right to spell out in the Khawaja case in the particular context of an allegation of illegal entry. However, in other cases, of which I think the present was one, the point may be so obvious that it does not need to be put into words.

The concept of deficient performance was introduced by the Medical (Professional Performance) Act 1995. Until then the power to take action in relation to a person's registration was limited to cases of serious professional misconduct, the commission of criminal offences or serious impairment of fitness to practise by reason of ill health. Whilst some acts of incompetence could be brought within the scope of misconduct, not all could.

Questions of construction begin with the ordinary and grammatical meaning of the words used. As everyone agrees, section 7(2) has two operative parts, providing for different rules for two classes of charge. Essentially the question is whether the closing words of section 7(2)—"other than the following sections [and the numbered list]" govern the whole of section 7(2) or the second part dealing with mandatory referral up.