Libman v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1972 |
| Year | 1972 |
Privy Council - Jurisdiction - Professional discipline - Appeal from Disciplinary Committee of General Medical Council - Observations on exercise of Privy Council's jurisdiction -
The appellant was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council in respect of two charges and his registration was suspended for six months. On his appeal to the Judicial Committee under section 36 (3) of the Medical Act 1956F1:—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the rules approved by Parliament were such as to make it difficult for an appellant to displace a finding or order of the Disciplinary Committee unless it could be shown that something was clearly wrong either (i) in the conduct of the trial, or (ii) in the legal principles applied, or (iii) it could be shown that the findings of the committee were sufficiently out of tune with the evidence to indicate with reasonable certainty that the evidence had been misread; and within that legal framework the Disciplinary Committee were, on the evidence. entitled to come to the conclusion which they did (post, p. 275D–H).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Bhattacharya v. General Medical Council [
Felix v. General Dental Council [
Fox v. General Medical Council [
Rex v. Baskerville [
Sivarajah v. General Medical Council [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Bastable v. Bastable [
Bhandari v. Advocates Committee [
Blyth v. Blyth [
Redpath v. Redpath [
APPEAL (No. 5 of 1971) from a decision (March 4, 1971) of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council by which the appellant, Julius Libman, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and his registration suspended for six months.
The case is reported solely on the observations on the nature of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
James Comyn Q.C. and John Hamilton for the appellant.
Anthony Hidden for the General Medical Council.
October 20. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone L.C. announced that the appeal would be dismissed for reasons to be given later.
December 8. The reasons for their Lordships' decision were delivered by LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE L.C.
This is an appeal from the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council given on March 4, 1971, by which the appellant was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and the Disciplinary Committee directed the suspension of his registration for six months.
The appellant is a consultant physician of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Preiss v General Dental Council
...on which some reliance was placed for the General Dental Council in the argument of the present appeal, is the observation in Libman v General Medical Council [1972] AC 217, 221, suggesting that findings of a professional disciplinary committee should not be disturbed unless sufficiently o......
-
R Ellen Mafico v Nursing and Midwifery Council
...out of tune with the evidence to indicate with reasonable certainty that the evidence had been misread' (per Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC in Libman v General Medical Council [1972] AC 217 at 221F more recently confirmed in R(Campbell) v General Medical Council [2005] 1 WLR 3488 at [23]......
-
Rao v General Medical Council
...their Lordships start with the analysis of the role of the Legal Assessor considered by this Board inLibman v General Medical Council [1972] AC 217. Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC stated at 221B:- "(4) The legal assessor who assists the committee at its hearing is not a judge, and his ad......
-
Re Lopez Joseph Francis
...sitting in judgment on a colleague would be content to condemn on a mere balance of probabilities. In Libman v General Medical Council [1972] AC 217 the appellant, a consultant physician, was found guilty serious of professional misconduct by the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medica......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...indicate with reasonable certainty that the evidence had been misread’, citing Lord Hailsham in Julius Libman v General Medical Council [1972] AC 217 at 221: Huang Danmin at [57]. Disciplinary bodies with expert knowledge of the seriousness of an act were better positioned than a court to k......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...3 SLR 151 (‘Chia Yang Pong’) at [7]. The High Court affirmed Lord Hailsham”s observations in Libman Julius v General Medical Council[1972] AC 217 at 221 that findings of disciplinary committees should not be easily contested unless it could be shown that something was ‘clearly wrong’ on one......
