The Professional Standards Authority v The Health And Care Professions Council & Anor

The Professional Standards Authority v The Health And Care Professions Council & Anor

The panel properly applied the Indicative Sanctions Policy as guidance, gave adequate reasons, reasonably assessed the registrant's insight and risk of repetition, did not treat absence of patient involvement as mitigation, and was not required to amend allegations. The sanction of a five-year caution order was not unduly lenient.

Parties
Appellant: The Professional Standards Authority; First Respondent: The Health and Care Professions Council; Second Respondent: Benedict Doree
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal (professional Discipline) / Second Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Appeal Against Disciplinary Committee Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sanctions Policy, Fitness to Practise, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decisions
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Health Law Sanctions Policy Fitness to Practise Procedural Fairness Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decisions

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Professional Standards Authority

Appellant

The Health and Care Professions Council

First Respondent

Benedict Doree

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (professional Discipline) / Second Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Appeal Against Disciplinary Committee Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary panel erred in applying the Indicative Sanctions Policy
  2. 2 Whether the panel's approach to the registrant's insight was flawed
  3. 3 Whether absence of patient involvement was a mitigating factor

Ratio Decidendi

The panel properly applied the Indicative Sanctions Policy as guidance, gave adequate reasons, reasonably assessed the registrant's insight and risk of repetition, did not treat absence of patient involvement as mitigation, and was not required to amend allegations. The sanction of a five-year caution order was not unduly lenient.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed