Blog
Sanctions Guidance is not a score sheet – Court of Appeal findings from GMC v Gilbert & PSA
Jessica Etherington
5 January 2016
Talking therapists - what does the Statement of Intent mean for practitioners?
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC) and United Kingdom for Psychotherapy (UKCP) recently issued a joint Statement of Intent.
23 December 2015
Professional regulatory hearings - 2015 in review
Corporate Crime analysis: Julie Norris, partner and head of the regulatory and professional disciplinary defence team at Kingsley Napley LLP, looks at the most significant developments in 2015 in the area of professional regulatory hearings.
16 December 2015
Case update: A salutary reminder to regulated professionals and students on the use of social media
Ravindu Sahan Thilakawardhana v The Office of the Independent Adjudicator v The University of Leicester [2015] EWHC 3285 (Admin)
Before His Honour Judge Milwyn Jarman QC
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.
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.