Peatfield v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1986 |
| Year | 1986 |
| Date | 1986 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Medical Practitioner - Professional Conduct Committee - Procedure - Charge of serious professional misconduct in treatment of individual patients - Whether charge bad for duplicity - Failure of committee to comply with rule relating to admission of evidence - Committee's statement of findings - Whether injustice caused to practitioner -
A doctor was charged before the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council that between about June 1980 and about November 1984 or later he abused his professional position as a medical practitioner by supplying to individual patients quantities of certain drugs repeatedly over extensive periods without first adequately examining each patient or seeking adequate information as to the patient's medical history, without first consulting the patients' general practitioners about the proposed treatment or in all cases notifying them after treatment first commenced of the details of any drugs supplied and the dosages prescribed, and without making adequate inquiries on each occasion about the effect of the treatment on the patient's health. The patients were not particularised in the charge but statements of the witnesses for the General Medical Council were sent to the doctor's solicitors. No objection was made by the doctor to the form of the charge as stated in the notice of inquiry. At the hearing before the committee evidence was given on behalf of the General Medical Council as to nine patients, including evidence relating to two unidentified patients which would have been inadmissible in criminal proceedings in England but in respect of which the committee failed to adopt the procedure prescribed by rule 56(1) of the General Medical Council Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1980.F1 In announcing the committee's decision in accordance with rule 30(1) the chairman merely stated that they had found the facts alleged against the doctor in the charge proved to their satisfaction without giving reasons for the decision or indicating the facts found to have been established. After being addressed by counsel for the General Medical Council and the doctor the committee judged the doctor to have been guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to the facts proved against him in the charge and directed that his name should be erased from the register.
On the doctor's appeal to the Judicial Committee:—
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that, although the charge wrongly referred to “individual patients,” it could be fairly read and had been treated by the parties before the committee as being a charge that referred to a course of conduct amounting to serious professional misconduct in the manner the doctor conducted his practice; that, in those circumstances, the complaint that the charge was bad for duplicity was not a sufficient ground for allowing the appeal (post, p. 248B–D).
(2) That the evidence led about the unidentified patients would be inadmissible in a criminal trial and, therefore, the committee should have complied with the proviso to rule 56(1) of the Rules of 1980 by consulting the legal assessor before allowing the evidence to be admitted; but that counsel for the doctor had not objected to the admission of the evidence and the doctor had suffered no injustice by the committee's failure to comply with the terms of the proviso (post, pp. 248F–G, H, 249C).
(3) That, although there could be cases where a committee in discharging their duty under rule 30(1) of the Rules of 1980 would need to give more details of their findings, the committee had given sufficient details to discharge their duty under rule 30(1) and the doctor's counsel had not been prejudiced by any lack of detail in the committee's findings in making his submissions; and that despite the criticisms of the inquiry, the Board was satisfied that a fair and proper inquiry had been held and the committee had made a proper finding (post, pp. 250C–F, 251B).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Bebbington v. General Optical Council (Appeal No. 55 of 1984) (unreported), 22 May 1985,
Fox v. General Medical Council [
Rai v. General Medical Council (Appeal No. 54 of 1983) (unreported), 14 May 1984,
Reg. v. General Medical Council, Ex parte Gee [
Rodgers v. General Medical Council (Appeal No. 46 of 1984) (unreported), 19 November 1984,
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Reg. v. Greenfield [
Reg. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Khan (Mahmud) [
Tarnesby v. General Medical Council (Appeal No. 21 of 1969) (unreported), 20 July 1970,
APPEAL (No. 33 of 1985) by Barry John Durrant Peatfield, a registered medical practitioner, from a determination of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council on 12 July 1985 that by reason of a finding of serious professional misconduct his name be erased from the Register of Medical Practitioners.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Michael Beloff QC and Thomas Shields for the doctor.
Ann Curnow QC and M. J. Dennis for the General Medical Council.
2 December. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN.
On 12 July 1985 the appellant, who was a registered practitioner, was judged by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council, the respondent to the appeal, to have been guilty of serious professional misconduct. The committee directed that his name should be erased from the register. The doctor has exercised his statutory right to appeal from the decision of the committee to Her Majesty in Council.
Originally the doctor faced two charges but the second was not established and need not be further considered. The first charge was in these terms:
“That, being registered under the Medical Act, (1) between about June 1980 and about November 1984 or later, at Your practice premises in Purley and in South Croydon, You abused Your professional position as a medical practitioner by supplying to individual patients, in return for fees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v General Medical Council, ex parte Gee
...charge which is outstanding in the inquiry at the stage at which a determination or finding under rule 30 falls to be made. In Peatfield v. General Medical Council [1986] 1 W.L.R. 243 the Board was able to reach the conclusion in the light of the whole circumstances including the announceme......
-
Dr. Gnanapragasam Anton Joseph Selvanathan v The General Medical Council
...the subsequent cases of Rai v. General Medical Council (unreported), (14th May 1984, Privy Council Appeal No. 54 of 1983) and Peatfield v. General Medical Council [1986] 1 W.L.R. 243 in which the Board held that, although the Professional Committee had power to give reasons, it was under no......
-
Morris v Banque Arabe et Internationale d'Investissment SA (No 2)
...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. ......
-
R v General Medical Council, ex parte Gee
...similar to the charge which was held proved against Dr. Peatfield in the recent case, heard on appeal by the Privy Council of Peatfield v. General Medical Council (1986) 1 W.L.R. 243. There are indications from other recent disciplinary cases that this type of comprehensive charge is curren......