Sayer v General Osteopathic Council

Sayer v General Osteopathic Council

The Committee's findings that the professional relationship persisted until 14 March 2019, that the Appellant's conduct in entering a personal relationship and failing to hand over care was sexually motivated, and that these amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, were not wrong or unjust. The sanction of six months' suspension was within the bounds of reasonable and proportionate response to the seriousness of the misconduct, primarily to maintain public confidence and professional standards. There was no serious procedural irregularity in the absence of a good character direction.

Parties
Appellant: Benjamin Sayer; Respondent: General Osteopathic Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal (professional Discipline) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unacceptable Professional Conduct, Sexual Misconduct, Sanctions, Appeals, Fitness to Practise
Professional Discipline Health Law Unacceptable Professional Conduct Sexual Misconduct Sanctions Appeals Fitness to Practise

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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Sayer

Appellant

General Osteopathic Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal (professional Discipline) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does the professional relationship between an osteopath and patient end for the purposes of professional boundaries?
  2. 2 Was the Appellant's conduct sexually motivated prior to the formal end of the professional relationship?
  3. 3 Was the Committee's finding of unacceptable professional conduct and sanction of suspension justified?

Ratio Decidendi

The Committee's findings that the professional relationship persisted until 14 March 2019, that the Appellant's conduct in entering a personal relationship and failing to hand over care was sexually motivated, and that these amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, were not wrong or unjust. The sanction of six months' suspension was within the bounds of reasonable and proportionate response to the seriousness of the misconduct, primarily to maintain public confidence and professional standards. There was no serious procedural irregularity in the absence of a good character direction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.