News

GOC regulator reveals High Court definition

Regulation
New revelations have been made of how optical practitioners’ disciplinary cases could be referred to the High Court if the resultant outcome is viewed to be ‘too lenient’.

High CourtNew revelations have been made of how optical practitioners’ disciplinary cases could be referred to the High Court if the resultant outcome is viewed to be ‘too lenient’.

The details have emerged in a report by the two-year old supervisory council which oversees the UK’s healthcare regulatory bodies, including the GOC.

In its annual report for 2004-2005, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) has praised the GOC for introducing its compulsory CET scheme, and its efforts to implement a code of conduct for practitioners.

CHRE was established in April 2003 by the Health Care Professions Act (2002). One of its tasks is to protect the public by scrutinising outcomes of disciplinary cases by the likes of the General Medical Council, General Dental Council, and those related to the optical profession.

Section 29 of the Act allows CHRE to refer ‘fitness to practise’ decisions to court if the CHRE considers the regulator’s decision is too lenient.

In its 2004-2005 report the CHRE recorded that it has received judgements on 10 cases from the High Court and Court of Appeal – winning six of them – and commented that it has ‘learnt a great deal about our powers under the section 29 from these judgements', including:

  • A clarification of the meaning of undue lenience in section 29 - for a decision to be unduly lenient it has to be, ‘outside the range of sanctions that the relevant disciplinary panel, applying its mind to all the factors relevant to its jurisdiction, could reasonably consider appropriate’.
  • Further explanation of undue lenience was provided by the Court of Appeal, with the CHRE stating ‘we should consider whether the sanction is “one which a disciplinary tribunal, having regard to the relevant facts and to the object of the disciplinary proceedings, could reasonably have imposed” or whether it “is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the practitioner’s conduct and the interests of the public”.'

    To date CHRE has asked for transcripts of GOC disciplinary cases, though has not taken any action which would lead to a High Court confrontation.

    Elsewhere in the report, the CHRE stated that there was room for improvement in the regulatory bodies' communication with the police, and the council said it would be useful to support bodies such as the GOC in its efforts to co-operate with the police.
  • Related Articles