Lamming -v- General Medical Council
[2008] ALL ER (D) 92 (Sep)
The appellant doctor had received in error, over several
months, salary payments totalling over £31,000. The appellant had
kept the money knowing that he should not have received it and he
falsely asserted in a letter that it represented funding for study
leave that had been granted to him. The appellant had paid back
£8,750, and accepted that the conduct was dishonest.
In considering the case, at the sanction stage of proceedings,
the history that the panel had to take into account included the
fact that in August 2004 a Professional Conduct Committee had found
the appellant guilty of serious professional misconduct in that he
had dishonestly represented his qualifications and experience. In
respect of the earlier finding, the appellant had been suspended
for a period of three months.
The appellant represented himself over several days at the most
recent panel hearing and had made submissions in mitigation. The
panel adjourned the case after the close of submissions and
subsequently erased the appellant's entry from the register.
The appellant appealed on two grounds namely, the panel should
have adjourned the proceedings to enable the appellant to seek
legal advice and representation at the point when they were
considering the penalty of erasure, and the imposition of erasure
as a sanction, was disproportionate in the circumstances.
In dismissing the first ground of appeal, the court found that
the appellant had ably conducted his case throughout the duration
of the fitness to practise hearing, and was able to put forward his
case on penalty fully. Although there may be cases where it would
be appropriate for the panel to decide to adjourn proceedings, this
was no such case, and there had no procedural unfairness
demonstrated. In respect of the second ground of appeal, the court
held that it was not possible to say that the panel was wrong
in its decision to make the appellant subject to erasure. The
panel had applied all of the considerations fully and in a highly
structured way. It had balanced the public interest
considerations with the effect of serious dishonesty against the
personal position of mitigation of appellant, including his health
at the material time and at the time of their decision.
In addition the panel was entitled to take a particularly
serious view of the course of conduct, as the misconduct related to
a large sum of money over a long period of time; the most recent
acts of dishonesty compounded by the dishonest letter that the
appellant had sent to the trust when these allegations came to
light. Furthermore, the panel were entitled to have in mind the
earlier General Medical Council (GMC) proceedings in 2004.
In the circumstances, the sanction was not disproportionate and
the appeal would be dismissed in its entirety.
Teresa Murphy is a barrister in Blake Lapthorn's Professional
Regulatory team. Please contact her on 0207 814 5403, or email her
at teresa.murphy@bllaw.co.uk
-------------
To read other articles in the latest edition of the Professional
Regulatory ebulletin or view/download the bulletin in its
entirety, click on the links in the right-hand margin at the top of
the page.
|