Ahmed, R (on the application of) v General Optical Council [2012] EWHC 3699 (Admin) (23 November 2012)

Ahmed, R (on the application of) v General Optical Council [2012] EWHC 3699 (Admin) (23 November 2012)

The Committee was entitled to find impairment based on repeated dishonesty, which undermined public confidence, but the maximum suspension period was disproportionate; a 4-month suspension was appropriate.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3699 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Waqar Ahmed; Defendant: General Optical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Regulatory Tribunal Decision / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Fitness to Practise, Dishonesty, Sanctions, Appeal Procedure
Professional Regulation Administrative Law Fitness to Practise Dishonesty Sanctions Appeal Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waqar Ahmed

Claimant

General Optical Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Regulatory Tribunal Decision / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fitness to Practise Committee was wrong to find impairment of fitness to practise
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of 12 months suspension was proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Committee was entitled to find impairment based on repeated dishonesty, which undermined public confidence, but the maximum suspension period was disproportionate; a 4-month suspension was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Suspension reduced from 12 months to 4 months
  • No order as to costs