Central Criminal Courts image
This site is based on Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings, 8th Edition
Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings is the leading work on this important and dynamic area of law. For 20 years it has provided authoritative guidance to lawyers, tribunals, and other experts dealing with professional discipline and regulation.

Appeals against decisions of the Fitness to Practise Panel

In the case of Raschid v General Medical Council [2007] 1 WLR 1460 Laws LJ stressed that there were two particular strands in the relevant learning which needed to be taken into account. One differentiated the function of the panel or committee in imposing sanctions from that of a court imposing retributive punishment. The other emphasised the special expertise of the panel or committee to make the required judgment. The learned judge then indicated that the required approach did not emasculate the High Court's role, saying:

" . . . the High Court will correct material errors of fact and of course of law and it will exercise a judgment, though distinctly and firmly a secondary judgment, as to the application of the principles to the facts of the case."

See also Evans v General Medical Council (unreported) Appeal No 40 of 1984 at p. 3 and Ghosh v. General Medical Council (Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) [2001] UKPC 29; [2001] 1WLR 1915.

 

5th Edition » | Chapter 18