The form of medical appeals
The Privy Council laid down the proper approach to appeals from medical practitioners in as follows:
‘(Veterinary) practitioners have a statutory
right of appeal to the Board under section 40 of
the
Medical Act 1983, which does not limit or
qualify the right of the appeal or the
jurisdiction of the Board in any respect. The
Board's jurisdiction is appellate, not
supervisory. The appeal is by way of a rehearing
in which the Board is fully entitled to
substitute its own decision for that of the
Committee. The fact that the appeal is on paper
and that witnesses are not recalled makes it
incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate that
some error has occurred in the proceedings before
the Committee or in its decision, but this is
true of most appellate processes.
It is true that the Board's powers of
intervention may be circumscribed by the
circumstances in which they are invoked,
particularly in the case of appeals against
sentence. But their Lordships wish to emphasise
that their powers are not as limited as may be
suggested by some of the observations which have
been made in the past. In Evans v General
Medical Council (unreported) Appeal No 40 of
1984 at p. 3 the Board said:
“The principles upon which (the) Board acts in
reviewing sentences passed by the Professional
Conduct Committee are well settled. It has been
said time and again that a disciplinary committee
are the best possible people for weighing the
seriousness of professional misconduct, and that
the Board will be very slow to interfere with the
exercise of the discretion of such a committee. …
The Committee are familiar with the whole
gradation of seriousness of the cases of various
types which come before them, and are peculiarly
well qualified to say at what point on that
gradation erasure becomes the appropriate
sentence. This Board does not have that advantage
nor can it have the same capacity for judging
what measures are from time to time required for
the purpose of maintaining professional
standards."
‘For these reasons the Board will accord an
appropriate measure of respect to the judgment of
the Committee whether the practitioner's failings
amount to serious professional misconduct and on
the measures necessary to maintain professional
standards and provide adequate protection to the
public. But the Board will not defer to the
Committee's judgment more than is warranted by
the circumstances. The Council conceded, and
their Lordships accept, that it is open to them
to consider all the matters raised (the
appellant); to decide whether the sanction of
erasure was appropriate and necessary in the
public interest or was excessive and
disproportionate; and in the latter event either
to substitute some other penalty or to remit the
case to the Committee for reconsideration.’
Ghosh v. General Medical Council (Professional
Conduct Committee of the GMC)
[2001] UKPC 29; [2001] 1WLR 1915.
These principles apply equally to an appeal
relating to the Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons: MacLeod v. RCVS
[2006] UKPC 39, para. 22. And see Walker
v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
[2007] UKPC 64.
Categories: Chapter 15, Updates