In the case of Swanney v Full Decision of the General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Panel  ScotCS CSIH_35 it was held that:
Section 36(1)(b) of the Medical Act 1983 (which deals with sanctions for serious professional misconduct’) ‘could relate to conduct which took place outside the United Kingdom. While the legislation itself is silent upon this matter, we have reached the view that the provision can relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom. We agree with the submission made to us by counsel for the respondents that the consequences of the view advanced by the appellant would be highly undesirable. It cannot be supposed that Parliament intended such consequences. It appears to us to be inconceivable that the legislation would not permit inquiry into the conduct of a registered person, with a view to seeing whether serious professional misconduct had occurred, simply because that conduct had occurred in some other state. If the contrary view were accepted it would mean that a practitioner whose conduct could be regarded as serious professional misconduct in some other jurisdiction could come to the United Kingdom and practice medicine here with impunity, it might be to the danger of the public. Such a result would undermine the objective of the respondents, enshrined in Section 1(1A) of the 1983 Act, which provides that the main objective of the respondents is to "protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public".’
In that case it was also held that the fact that the doctor in question had already been the subject of disciplinary by a foreign regulator did not preclude disciplinary proceedings in this country since the rule of double jeopardy does not apply to disciplinary proceedings.
4th Edition » | Chapter 6