Ahmed, R (on the application of) v General Optical Council

Ahmed, R (on the application of) v General Optical Council

The Committee was entitled to find that the appellant's fitness to practise was impaired due to repeated dishonesty, and the finding was not wrong. However, the sanction of 12 months' suspension was disproportionate to the facts and should be reduced to 4 months.

Parties
Claimant: Waqar Ahmed; Defendant: General Optical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Appeal From Fitness to Practise Committee Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Fitness to Practise, Dishonesty, Sanctions, Appeals From Regulatory Bodies
Professional Regulation Administrative Law Fitness to Practise Dishonesty Sanctions Appeals From Regulatory Bodies

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waqar Ahmed

Claimant

General Optical Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Appeal From Fitness to Practise Committee Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fitness to Practise Committee was wrong to find the appellant's fitness to practise was impaired due to dishonesty
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of 12 months' suspension was disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Committee was entitled to find that the appellant's fitness to practise was impaired due to repeated dishonesty, and the finding was not wrong. However, the sanction of 12 months' suspension was disproportionate to the facts and should be reduced to 4 months.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The period of suspension is reduced from 12 months to 4 months.
  • No order as to costs.