British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Dutt v General Medical Council [2005] EWHC 2377 (Admin) (10 October 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2377.html
Cite as: [2005] EWHC 2377 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| DUTT | (CLAIMANT) | |
| -v- | ||
| GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL | (DEFENDANT) |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR D PIEVSKY (instructed by General Medical Council) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE LEVESON: This is an appeal by Dr Dev Dutt against a decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel of the General Medical Council, dated 15th November 2004, which determined that his conduct had fallen short of the standards of behaviour expected of a registered medical practitioner. The panel judged him to be guilty of serious professional misconduct as a result of which he was reprimanded.
- The facts which formed the basis of the decision by the Panel concerned an application made by Dr Dutt to obtain passports for his daughters. Dr Dutt makes a series of points that there was no basis upon which the Fitness to Practise Panel ought to have concluded that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct and that the consequence of their reprimand of him has been devastating. That fact has apparently been used by his ex-wife in matrimonial and other proceedings in order, he says, to vilify him. In addition, he says that the fact of the finding has in some way been used to suspend him, although it is not clear whether that decision has been made by the General Medical Council or some other person. He says that he has in fact been suspended by the General Medical Council.
- Mr Pievsky had no instructions on that matter, but submits, in any event, that it is irrelevant for the purposes of this particular appeal. He points to section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, which was then the operative legislation. This provides that an appealable decision is one which directs erasure, suspension or conditional registration, or varies conditions imposed by a direction for conditional registration. As a consequence, Mr Pievsky argues that the decision to reprimand does not constitute an appealable decision. In other words, there is simply no jurisdiction in this Court to hear an appeal from a reprimand. He submits that the only way in which Dr Dutt could challenge the findings of fact of the Fitness to Practise Panel is by application by way of judicial review which has the additional hurdle of the necessity of seeking leave.
- I readily understand Dr Dutt's concern that the finding of professional misconduct has been used by others, and, if he is right, by the General Medical Council itself in some way to denigrate him and as a basis for his ultimate suspension. If he has been suspended by order of the General Medical Council that is an appealable decision. If he wishes to challenge the finding of the Fitness to Practise Panel that can only be done by way of judicial review. The difficulty in his way is that the period within which an application for judicial review must be made is no longer than three months. Although there is ground to extend that time, he may very well be met with the argument that whatever information he might have had at the time of the hearing, when he received the skeleton argument served by the GMC in this case, which is dated as early as 7th March 2005, he then should have appreciated that he had no right of appeal.
- It is not for me to decide whether time should be extended to permit a challenge, or whether there is some other appealable decision made by the General Medical Council. My only duty is to determine whether the present appeal can legitimately be argued in this Court. Given that no appealable decision was made, it clearly cannot. In those circumstances this appeal is dismissed.
- Dr Dutt, in due course this decision will become available in writing and you will able to read it on the internet. It will then be open to you to take such advice as you wish in relation to any other steps you ought to take in an effort to deal with the concerns that you have expressed. Thank you.
- MR PIEVSKY: My Lord, I am instructed to ask for my costs in this matter. I hope the Court will have received a schedule of costs, but if I am wrong about that I have a spare copy. Dr Dutt has also seen one.
- MR JUSTICE LEVESON: I have. Do you want to say anything about that, Dr Dutt?
- THE CLAIMANT: I am due to appear in Bankruptcy Court very shortly. I do not have any money. I do not have any bank account. I am legally funded for my other matters and I am on interview next Monday for banking credit to get some funds to live on. I have applied to the Homeless Unit to find somewhere to sleep at night. This is my predicament at night. I had an appointment today to give me some benefits on my pension credit fund, which they had to move it to next Monday because of this hearing, I didn't want to relist it. I was hoping that something could be done. So I have a problem with the financial costs at the moment. The reason I am here is on borrowed money. At the moment the General Medical Council have frozen my National Health pension. My suspension is on the website. I do not tell lies. Never have done and never shall.
- MR JUSTICE LEVESON: If you are suspended by order of the GMC, then there is an appealable decision which you can appeal.
- THE CLAIMANT: But there is a finding of fact that I want to do first.
- MR JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand, but you understood the reasons I gave you, that you can't do it this way.
- Mr Plebsky, in the light of what you have heard, is there any point?
- MR PIEVSKY: My Lord, we are in your Lordship's hands.
- MR JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, in the light of what I have heard I will --
- THE CLAIMANT: I am sorry to interrupt, my Lord, fee exemption costs. They have given me exemption for another appeal. They are very concerned that I don't have any financial funds available and they have given my exemption fee for her hearing which has gone against me on the basis of the same judgment that the General Medical Council are here today for. You can ask the court staff to ring the exception people downstairs, but they have all the details of my finances downstairs.
- MR JUSTICE LEVESON: What I am going to do, Dr Dutt, is this. I will make an order for costs, but I will order it not to be enforced without further order of the Court. In other words, I expect, once your bankruptcy is proved, if it is going ahead, that will be the end of that.
- THE CLAIMANT: I am grateful, my Lord.
- MR JUSTICE LEVESON: I have made the order, but I think you will have to wait and see what happens. Let me give Dr Dutt his papers back.
- THE CLAIMANT: Thank you, my Lord.
(Pause)
(Handed)