Reza v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1991 |
| Date | 04 March 1991 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Medical Practitioner - Professional Conduct Committee - Procedure - Charge of serious professional misconduct by indecent remarks to employees and two patients - Whether allegations to be separately charged - Committee hearing complaints in two groups - Whether striking similarity between evidence of complainants in each group - Whether complaints to be heard by same committee -
By a notice of inquiry a doctor was charged before the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council in each of heads 1 to 4 with making improper and indecent remarks to employees and improper behaviour towards three of them, in heads 5, 6 and 7(a) with making improper and indecent remarks to patients and in head 7(b) with failing to treat the daughter of one of them properly, and that in relation to the facts alleged in each head he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct. The complaints were treated as separate charges and the General Medical Council accepted that head 7(b) should be heard separately. The committee directed that heads 1 to 4 (group A) would be heard together and heads 6 and 7(a) (group B) would be heard together. Head 5 was not pursued. At the close of the case against the doctor in relation to group A the committee dismissed head 1. After hearing the doctor's evidence and counsel's submissions and receiving advice from the legal assessor the committee found the facts alleged in head 2 and 3, but not 4, proved. The committee refused to adjourn group B to be heard by a differently constituted committee and went on to hear those charges and found the facts alleged proved, except indecent remarks in head 6. Having found the facts in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 27 of the
On the doctor's appeal to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that the charge properly construed narrated a course of conduct by the doctor in carrying on his practice, and since separate charges were appropriate only where there were allegations of distinct types of misconduct, the establishment of one of which could not reasonably aggravate the seriousness of another, the complaint, including head 7(b), had properly been incorporated in a single charge of professional misconduct; that there was no real likelihood of prejudice to the doctor being caused by the committee proceeding to hear group B after group A, and a reasonable and fair-minded person familiar with such proceedings would not reasonably have suspected that it would be impossible for the doctor to have a fair hearing on group B; but that, in any event, the 1988 Rules envisaged an inquiry by one committee into every matter concerning a particular practitioner rather than separate hearings of charges or parts of charges by different committees; and that, accordingly, the same committee was entitled to hear both groups of complaints against the doctor, and that it was appropriate to hear all the evidence with regard to both groups and to follow the whole of the procedure laid down by rule 27 before proceeding to that under rules 28 to 31 (post, pp. 946F–H, 948G, 949A, C, 950H, 952G–H, 953C–E).
(2) That the doctor's course of conduct and the circumstances in which it was pursued were not commonplace, but displayed an underlying unity which gave the evidence of the complainants probative force as mutual corroboration; and that, accordingly, subject to the question of collusion, which had been adverted to, the evidence of one complainant was capable of amounting to corroboration of other heads in the same group provided that it was credible (post, pp. 944G–H, 957A, D, G).
Per curiam. The juxtaposition of allegations which, though not qualifying as similar fact evidence, are like enough in character to cause prejudice will necessitate a strict warning to the committee and also, where appropriate, the identification of similar fact principles when the evidence has been given (post, p. 953F).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Advocate, H.M. v. A.E.,
Advocate, H.M. v. M'Donald,
Daly v. General Medical Council[
Duncan v. Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee[
Lanford v. General Medical Council[
Libman v. General Medical Council[
Moorov v. H.M. Advocate,
Reg. v. B., The Times, 26 June 1990,
Reg. v. Blyth Valley Juvenile Court, Ex parte S.(
Reg. v. Boardman[
Reg. v. General Medical Council, Ex parte Gee[
Reg. v. Grimsby Borough Quarter Sessions, Ex parte Fuller[
Reg. v. Inder(
Reg. v. Kilbourne[
Reg. v. Liverpool City Justices, Ex parte Topping[
Reg. v. Ludlow[
Reg. v. Martin[
Reg. v. Scarrott[
Rex v. Sims[
Rex v. Southern(
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Wong Muk Ping[
Fox v. General Medical Council[
Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales[
Peatfield v. General Medical Council[
Reg. v. Lunt(
Reg. v. Novac(
Reg. v. P., The Times, 28 August 1990,
Reg. v. Rance(
Reg. v. Wilmot(
Sivaraja v. General Medical Council[
APPEAL (No. 11 of 1990) by Mohammed Ali Reza, a registered medical practitioner from a determination by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council on 12 March 1990 that by reason of a finding of serious professional misconduct his name be erased from the Register of Medical Practitioners. The committee ordered that his registration should be suspended forthwith.
At the close of the hearing before the Judicial Committee Lord Keith of Kinkel announced that their Lordships would recommend that the appeal should be dismissed for reasons to be delivered later.
The facts are stated in their Lordships' judgment giving the reasons for their decision.
Kieran Coonan Q.C. and Nicola Davies for the doctor.
Andrew Collins Q.C. and Rosalind Foster for the General Medical Council.
4 March. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD LOWRY.
This appeal arose from a determination on 12 March 1990 by the Professional Conduct Committee (“the committee”) of the General Medical Council (“the Council”) that the appellant Dr. Mohammed Ali Reza was guilty of serious professional misconduct and a direction by the committee that his name be erased from the Register of Medical Practitioners. The committee further determined that the doctor's registration be suspended forthwith for the necessary protection of members of the public. On 23 March 1990 the doctor made application to the High Court under section 38(6) of the
By notice of inquiry dated 5 February 1990 the doctor was charged:
“That being registered under the
, (1) on numerous occasions between about July 1986 and about July 1987, at your surgery premises, you made improper and indecent remarks to your employee, Miss E.L., and you behaved improperly towards her; (2) on numerous occasions between about February and about June 1987, at your surgery premises, you made improper and indecent remarks to your employee, Miss A.S.; (3) on numerous occasions between about July and about September 1987, at your surgery premises, you made improper and indecent remarks to your employee, Miss L.M., and you behaved improperly towards her; (4) on numerous occasions between about February 1987 and about January 1988, at your surgery premises, you made improper and indecent remarks to your employee Miss C.S. and you behaved improperly towards her; (5) in about December 1987 you abused... Medical Act 1983
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Dr. Emmanuel Dibua Nwabueze v The General Medical Council
...of the surgery between 1980 and an unknown date in 1995. It could be said, following the guidance in Reza v. General Medical Council [1991] 2 A.C. 182, that heads 3 and 4 taken together related to a course of conduct of an improper kind which the appellant had engaged in with Mrs. D during ......
-
Zulfiqar Ali v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
...of the Immigration Matter by the Property Matter, even though the former preceded the latter in time. The case of Reza v General Medical Council [1991] 2 AC 182 (“ Reza”) could be distinguished because the allegations there were based on similar matters, whereas in the present case the Immi......
-
Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, Truscott and Ruscillo
...that acquittal being referred but an acquittal on both could not lead to any reference. Mr Anderson QC for the GMC referred me to Reza v. GMC [1991] 2 AC 182 which encourages separate charges only where there are allegations of distinct types of misconduct but it is clear from that case tha......
- Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, Truscott and Ruscillo
-
ALICE IN WONDERLAND ATROCITY ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY A WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN.
...Make Wealth--With Information: War is won today by information, not industrial power or strength of troops. First of two parts., L.A. TIMES (Mar. 5, 1991), (10) Military, U.N., https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/military (last visited July 22, 2021). (11) Tove Rosen, The Influence of the Nuremb......