Morris v Banque Arabe et Internationale d'Investissment SA (No 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 October 2000 |
| Date | 18 October 2000 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Privy Council
Before Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Sir Anthony Evans
Privy Council - General Medical Council - Professional Conduct Committee - brief explanation of determination should always be given
The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council should now always give a brief explanation for their determination, whether or not they found a medical practitioner guilty of serious professional misconduct, and their decision on the question of penalty.
The Privy Council so stated, inter alia, in dismissing an appeal by Dr Gnanapragasam Anton Joseph Selvanathan against a determination of the Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC on February 18, 2000 finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct.
Mr Michael Beloff, QC and Ms Karen Steyn for the appellant; Mr Robert Englehart, QC and Ms Jane Sullivan for the GMC.
LORD HOPE, delivering the opinion of the Board, said that in Libman v General Medical CouncilELR ((1972) AC 217, 221) the Board had approved of the practice by which, beyond a bare statement of their findings of fact, the disciplinary committee did not in general give reasons for their decision.
Practice had moved on since Libman v General Medical CouncilELR ((1972) AC 217 and the subsequent cases of Rai v GMCUNK (unreported, May 14, 1984, Privy Council Appeal No 54 of 1983) and Peatfield v GMCWLR ((1986) 1 WLR 243) in which the Board held that, although the Professional Conduct Committee had power to give reasons, it was under no obligation to do so.
As a result of changes introduced by the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules Order of Council (SI 1988 2255), cases were heard by the Professional Conduct Committee under detailed rules which laid down a carefully structured system for the way such proceedings were to be conducted.
Rule 17(1) provided that the notice of inquiry which was to be sent to the practitioner had to specify in the form of a charge the matters into which the inquiry was to be held.
Rule 17(2) provided that, in a case relating to conduct, the charge had to include a statement which identified the alleged facts upon which the charge was based.
There was then a two-stage procedure by which the committee had first to consider and determine under rule 27(2) which, if any, of the facts alleged had been proved and the chairman announced their findings under rule 27(3), before the committee proceeded under rules 28 and 29 to determine the question of serious professional misconduct.
In contrast to the practice which was followed under their rules by the Health Committee, (see the General Medical Council Health Committee (Procedure) Rules Order of Council (SI 1987 No 2174) andStefan v GMCWLR ((1999) 1 WLR 1293)) where there was no charge setting out the allegations of fact and there was a single determination at the end of the proceedings as to the practitioner's fitness to practise, the 1988 Procedure Rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial