Carroll v Radiographers Board
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hope of Craighead |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] UKPC 45 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 15 of 2001 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 06 November 2001 |
[2001] UKPC 45
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
[Delivered by Lord Hope of Craighead]
The appellant is a State Registered Radiographer. On 4 December 1973 her name was entered on the register maintained for her profession under section 2 of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 by the Radiographers' Board. On 1 February 2001 the Disciplinary Committee of the Radiographers' Board found her guilty of infamous behaviour in a professional respect. As it was empowered to do by section 9(1) of the Act, the Committee directed that her name be removed from the register. The appellant has now appealed against that direction to their Lordships' Board under section 9(3).
The case against the appellant on 1 February 2001 was that she failed to disclose material information about her previous employment when she applied on 14 July 1999 for the post of radiographer at the Seacroft Hospital, which is part of the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. The charges against her were in these terms:
"That being a State Registered Radiographer, Mrs Carroll is guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect in that she individually or cumulatively:
1. failed to declare the reason for leaving the employment of Salford Royal Hospital NHS Trust, Hope Hospital in an application form dated 14th July 1999 for the post of Radiographer at the Seacroft Hospital part of the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust");
2. failed to declare her employment with and reasons for leaving Rochdale NHS Trust, Birch Hill Hospital in an application form dated 14th July 1999 for the post of Radiographer at the Trust;
3. failed to declare her employment with and reasons for leaving the Leicester Royal Infirmary in an application form dated 14th July 1999 for the post of Radiographer at the Trust."
The Committee was provided by the Board's solicitor with the following information from the disciplinary register about the appellant's previous history. On 28 May 1993 she was found guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect in that on two occasions in September 1992 in the Department of Radiography at the Conquest Hospital, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex she was incapable due to alcohol of performing her duty as the first call radiographer at the hospital. Judgment was postponed for one year. At the resumed hearing on 4 June 1994 no further action was taken. On 17 January 2000 she was again found guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect in that, either individually or cumulatively, (1) she failed to declare the reason for her leaving the employment of the Salford Royal Hospital NHS Trust Hope Hospital in an application form dated 15 September 1998 for the post of radiographer at the Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust, (2) she failed to declare her employment with and reasons for leaving Rochdale NHS Trust Birch Hill Hospital in that application form and (3) on 28 January 1999 she was under the influence of alcohol at an investigatory meeting at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. Judgment was postponed on this occasion for two years. After taking this information into account, the Committee decided on 1 February 2001 to direct removal of the appellant's name from the register.
The appellant represented herself at the hearing of her appeal by the Board. She did not seek to challenge the Committee's finding that she was guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect. She submitted however that the Committee ought not to have directed that her name be removed from the register. Her submissions were therefore directed solely to the question of penalty, and they fell into two parts. In the first place she provided some further information to explain the conduct which was the subject of charges 2 and 3. These charges related to her failure to declare her employment with and reasons for leaving the Birch Hill Hospital, Rochdale and Leicester Royal Infirmary when she was applying for the post of radiographer at the Seacroft Hospital. In the second place she submitted that the Committee had failed to take account of the fact that the conduct of which she had been found guilty on 1 February 2001 occurred some six months before the hearing on 17 January 2000 when, as she put it, she was put on probation for two years. She pointed out that she had not been found guilty of anything during her period of probation that would cause her to be found guilty of infamous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMAHON v COUNCIL of The LAW SOCIETY of SCOTLAND
...[1994] 1 WLR 512 Bijl v General Medical Council [2002] Lloyds Rep Med 60 Carroll v Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine [2002] Lloyds Rep Med 71 Docherty v Law Society of Scotland 1968 SLT 133 Evans v General Medical Council, unreported, Privy Council Appeal no 40 of 1984 Fineg......