AM, R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 2096 (Admin) (20 July 2015)

AM, R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 2096 (Admin) (20 July 2015)

GMC guidance does not unlawfully interfere with Article 8 or 10 ECHR rights, nor is it Wednesbury unreasonable for not aligning with DPP policy; GMC is entitled to require doctors to obey the law and structure guidance accordingly; any interference is justified and proportionate.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: AM; Defendant/respondent: The General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Assisted Suicide, Professional Regulation, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Medical Law Assisted Suicide Professional Regulation Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Wednesbury Unreasonableness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM

Claimant/applicant

The General Medical Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether GMC guidance unlawfully interferes with Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether GMC guidance is Wednesbury unreasonable for not aligning with DPP policy

Ratio Decidendi

GMC guidance does not unlawfully interfere with Article 8 or 10 ECHR rights, nor is it Wednesbury unreasonable for not aligning with DPP policy; GMC is entitled to require doctors to obey the law and structure guidance accordingly; any interference is justified and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed