Blog
Sanctions Guidance is not a score sheet – Court of Appeal findings from GMC v Gilbert & PSA
Jessica Etherington
24 November 2015
Case update: High Court terminates immediate suspension order imposed by the General Dental Council
Davey v General Dental Council, Queen’s Bench Division [2015 WL 6757832]
Judgement date: 08 October 2015
In this case, Mr Davey made an application to the Queen’s Bench Division to remove or overturn the immediate suspension order made by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the General Dental Council (GDC) restricting his right to practise.
2 November 2015
What standards and behaviour are expected of health and care professional students? HCPC Consultation on revised guidance for students
In October, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) launched a consultation seeking the views of their stakeholders on their draft revised guidance on conduct and ethics for students.
The HCPC regulates 16 professions including paramedics, practitioner psychologists and social workers in England.
20 October 2015
Case update: High Court confirms ‘moral opprobrium’ is part of test for determining unacceptable professional conduct as Osteopath’s appeal is dismissed and admonishment sanction stands
Shaw v General Osteopathic Council [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin)
Mr. Shaw (“S”), appealed to the High Court, against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Osteopathic Council ("the panel") on 29 January 2015. The panel admonished S for unacceptable professional conduct, pursuant to section 20(2) under the Osteopaths Act 1993 ("the Act"), and found "conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered osteopath”. The sanction of Admonishment is the least serious penalty that can be imposed upon registered osteopaths. Other sanctions available were conditions of practice, suspension and the most serious, removal from the register.
S‘s appeal was against the panel’s decision in relation to the finding of unacceptable professional conduct and that this decision was wrong, and therefore no sanction should have followed.
13 October 2015
Case update: Nurse succeeds on appeal after Court of Appeal (Scotland) find NMC panel failed to address registrant’s inadequate representation and wrongly accepted methodology put forward by NMC
D v Nursing and Midwifery Council Court of Session (Inner House, Extra Division), 4 November 2014.
D was a registered nurse and the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC) case was that between 23 May and 6 October 2011, D had taken small to large amounts of the anti-nausea drug, ‘cyziline’ from hospital supplies without authorisation. The fitness to practise panel at the NMC found the allegations proved, and imposed a striking off order from the NMC’s register for serious misconduct involving dishonesty. D appealed against this decision.
15 September 2015
Case Update: PSA finds sanction of 2 year caution unduly lenient after panel did not consider all the material circumstances of social worker’s dishonesty
Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Gemma Williamson [2015] EWHC 2420 (Admin)
Judgement date: 10 July 2015
Fitness to practise allegations:
A Panel (the Panel) of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) heard the disciplinary hearing against Ms Williamson (W) on 1 and 2 December 2014.