QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL||Respondent|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr D Bradley (instructed by General Optical Council) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"I do very much hope that it is fully appreciated the case of Goodyear, upon which this indication is based, makes it clear that it is entirely up to a defendant to decide whether he pleads guilty or not, but, should he plead guilty, Mr Preedy must understand that that is it. He could not thereafter come back before the court and say 'well, I have made a mistake. I should not have pleaded guilty. I did not understand what was going on' and the like. Any pleas of guilty would be final. Also, that if he did not plead guilty and this matter went to trial, as he has so clearly expressed in his own document, it must be anticipated that the Crown would be free to pursue their case on whatever basis they felt appropriate, and that the learned trial judge would not be bound in anyway by the indication that I have given."
"His second complaint it is that he was forced to plead guilty by his counsel and solicitors, whom he alleges to have acted wholly improperly in the conduct of his defence. But it is absolutely clear from the transcript of the hearings that the learned judge was at pains to ensure that the applicant was being given advice as to his position; and that he fully understood and agreed to the steps taken on his behalf. In short, we find no arguable basis upon which the court could be invited to set aside the pleas of guilty that he entered."
1) The appellant tested the sight of patients listed in a schedule put before the Committee whilst not registered as an optometrist, an ophthalmic medical practitioner, a medical student or a student optometrist.
2) The appellant forged the signature of Dr Yaqub on the material forms in relation to patients identified in another schedule.
3) The appellant made false claims for payment for sight test examinations and for the supply of prescriptions in relation to patients identified in that second schedule.
4) The appellant failed to declare that he was the subject of a criminal investigation when he was at the time being investigated by Counter Fraud Services (a) on an application for retention form dated 19 January 2006 and (b) on an application for retention form dated 21 December 2006.
5) The appellant appeared at Southwark Crown Court on 16 March 2007 and was convicted upon his own pleas of nine counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception and was subsequently sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment.
6) The appellant failed to declare that he was the subject of a criminal conviction on an application for retention form dated 22 December 2007 following the conviction at Southwark Crown Court.
7) The appellant's actions described in 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were (a) dishonest and (b) not of the standard of conduct expected of a dispensing optician.
"Re: Ronald Preedy [...]
I have seen Mr Preedy today. He has had long term Domestic Problems.
He's very depressed unable to think + comprehend.
He's been referred to PTPC local. Psychologist.
Today I have started him on antidepressants.
He's going to see me 2/52."
The reference to "PTPC" is to the Psychology, Therapy and Prevention Clinic; "2/52" is a reference to two weeks.
"Thank you for affording time to Mr Graham this morning.
We appreciate you are extremely busy and, of course, your patients come first. However, you are aware that we are before the General Optical Council today in proceedings against Ronald Preedy.
They have raised some questions in respect of the medical note, which are as follows:
1. Can you please elaborate and provide more details in respect of the previous history of depression and associated treatment in respect of Mr Preedy.
2. Can you clarify how you established that Mr Preedy is not able to think and comprehend.
3. Are you registered under the Mental Health Act Section 12? Did you make the diagnosis on that basis, or is it a non-clinical diagnosis of depression and anxiety?
In my view, reading your note and your helpful telephone call, I would conclude that Mr Preedy is not fit to attend these proceedings. Do you agree?
To assist the Panel, are you able to provide any prognosis, ie when is he likely to be fit to attend?
We apologise for sending you this communication but we would appreciate speaking to you this morning as we are due to be before the Panel at 1pm and we need these answers clarified."
"1. I can if you write to me then I can write a report from his record.
2. I have been a general practitioner since 1977. I see several patient in this situation and have to make assessment to assess their mental state. My assessment what wrote in my note to you yesterday is the same.
3. No I am not registered under health act section 12. But have sufficient experience to assess patients if they need treatment or refer to psychiatrist/psychologists.
He has already been referred to PTiPC
In Sutton Hospital.
When I get report from PTiPC
And treatment give then I will be able to assess.
I am seeing him in two weeks time to review his other medical conditions.
In future please write to me with mr Preedy consent. And will provide.
His mental physical problems/disabilities."