GOsC v Wray [2020] EWHC 3409 (Admin) How should regulators deal with professionals convicted of criminal offences, but who receive as a sentence nothing more than a conditional discharge? Most regulators have provisions in their rules for “conviction cases”. Generally the conviction is considered to be conclusive proof of the facts, and the registrant is […]
Most practitioners will have had cases where the reasoning of a tribunal as to why they believed a complainant against a professional amounted to little more than “we found him/her to be a credible and convincing witness”. In the absence of any other way of deciding between two competing accounts a tribunal may be forced […]
2 Hare Court Professional Discipline Newsletter June 2020 Contents Introduction A look into the remote future: Andrew Colman and Natasha Ricioppo Keep calm and carry on (remotely) – One Blackfriars: Lewis Macdonald The impact of Coronavirus on Inquests: Tom Day Reviving Article 2 – Re Dalton: Hannah Thomas […]
SRA v Mohammed Dar [2019] EWHC 2831 There has long been an issue with some regulators wanting to establish something of a tariff for certain disciplinary offences, particularly dishonesty. Many defence practitioners will remember the overuse of Parkinson v NMC [2010] EWHC 1898 (Admin) where a rule of law seemed to be created from an […]
A doctor who voluntarily absents himself from his fitness to practise hearing cannot expect that the hearing will be adjourned to enable him to make representations prior to sanction, even when strike-off is the most likely outcome. That was the finding of the Court of Appeal in Sanusi v GMC [2019] EWCA Civ 1172. The […]
29th Mar 2021 Read more
22nd Mar 2021 Read more