At Blake Lapthorn we want to understand what visitors to our website are browsing to ensure that we continue to produce content that is interesting and of value. We do this using 'cookies', which collect data in an anonymous form and do not contain any sensitive information. Find out more about how we use cookies and how to manage them. Should you continue to use our website, we will assume that you have consented to the use of cookies in accordance with our cookies policy unless you choose to disable the cookies.

review privacy and cookies
view as PDF print

professional regulatory monthly ebulletin - review of July 2012

Welcome to our latest edition of the professional regulatory law update, our at a glance guide to the important case law and news in the Professional Regulation field during the previous month.

Please click on the links to view this month's key regulatory case and press releases.

  • Rule 5 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct is not one of strict liability. Financial penalties would not always be required for breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules.
  • Barrister members of the Disciplinary Tribunal appointed by the President of the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) need not be technically eligible to be on the list of barrister volunteers maintained by the COIC, provided they have been appointed by the President.
  • Finding of the Conduct and Competence Committee quashed due to an inadequate direction by the Legal Assessor in respect of dishonesty which was compounded by inadequate particularisation in the Charge of the acts to which the dishonesty was said to attach to.
  • The Conduct & Competence Committee of the Nursing & Midwifery Council must inform the Registrant of their right to representation and the likely consequences if they do not have representation and must consider all evidence and mitigation even in private meeting sittings.
  • A Disciplinary Tribunal could supplement its rules and regulate its own procedure, provided it acted fairly and did not act contrary to the rules which governed it.
  • A jury may be directed to jointly consider the evidence of multiple witnesses regarding multiple counts on the indictment when assessing the unlikelihood of coincidence and propensity, provided the appropriate direction and warnings are given by the judge.
  • We highlight key press releases from July 2012, including those from the NMC, GMC, GDC, Royal Pharmaceutical Society and GOC.
  • We look at people on the move during July 2012, including news from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Financial Reporting Council, and Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

 

Please feel free to email Guy Micklewright with any feedback in relation to this month's update. Additionally, if you would like to receive further information in relation to any of the cases or developments referred to below, please email him and he will be pleased to assist.

View past professional regulatory ebulletins.

If we can help you, please contact Bradley Albuery, Chris Alder, Nick Leale or Stephen Murfitt in the Professional Regulatory team.
Share:
|More