General Medical Council v. Chandra [2018] EWCA Civ 1898
“Held, (1) the test to be applied when considering applications for restoration to the medical register was the same as that to be applied when considering the restoration of solicitors to the Roll of Solicitors, save that in respect of the former a test of exceptional circumstances did not have to be satisfied before a doctor was so restored. The question in both sanction and restoration cases was the same, namely whether, having regard to the over-arching objective in the 1983 Act, the applicant was fit to practise? When considering an application for restoration to the medical register, the tribunal should consider the matters in the Guidance for Doctors on Restoration following erasure by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal, including the circumstances that led to the erasure. It should make findings as to what extent the applicant had shown remorse and insight and remediated himself and satisfy itself that he was no longer a risk. The passage of time would be important. The tribunal should then stand back and have proper regard to the over-arching objective set out in section 1(1A) and (1B) of the 1983 Act (paras 59, 68, 70, 71, 89).”
“Bolton v. Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512; [1994] 2 All ER 486, CA applied.”
“(2) In the present case, the tribunal had applied the wrong test since its focus was limited to issues of the doctor’s acceptance of his wrongdoing, his insight, the risk of repetition and his competence but it had failed properly to understand the central importance of the over-arching objective to its ultimate decision. Therefore the judge below had erred in dismissing the council’s first appeal. Accordingly, while the court intended to allow the appeal in due course with a view to the matter being remitted to the tribunal for rehearing, there were important consequential matters that required further oral argument and a further hearing and therefore no order would be made in respect of the appeal prior to the resumed hearing. Until such time as an order was made, the doctor remained on the medical register and was entitled to continue in his employment as a doctor (paras 90, 92–96).”
- See summary of the case by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting.