Extraterritoriality
In the case of Swanney v Full Decision of the General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Panel [2008] 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.
Categories: Chapter 1, Chapter 18, Updates