The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions >> Trivedi v. The General Medical Council (Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) [1996] UKPC 41 (18th November, 1996)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1996/41.html
Cite as: [1996] UKPC 41

[New search] [Help]

Trivedi v. The General Medical Council (Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) [1996] UKPC 41 (18th November, 1996)

Privy Council Appeal No. 20 of 1996

Dr. Kailash Shanker Trivedi Appellant

v.

The General Medical Council Respondent

FROM

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

---------------

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

Delivered the 18th November 1996

------------------

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Lord Steyn

·[Delivered by Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

-------------------------

1. The appellant, Dr. Kailash Shanker Trivedi, appeals from a direction of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council given on 26th March 1996 whereby it was ordered that his registration in the Medical Register be suspended for a period of three months.

2. The facts are that the appellant was convicted before a jury at Grimsby Crown Court on 18th November 1994 on ten charges of false accounting. He was represented on that occasion by Mr. Bevan Q.C., who made a powerful speech on his behalf in mitigation. He was sentenced to perform 160 hours' community service and ordered to pay ,5,000 towards the costs of the prosecution.

3. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction on a number of grounds. His case was presented by Mr. Scrivener Q.C. On 13th July 1995 his appeal was dismissed. Thereafter he hoped to be able to appeal to the House of Lords. But on 24th October 1995 the Court of Appeal refused leave, and declined to certify that there was any point of public importance involved in the case. The appellant argued before the Board that it was nevertheless open to the Appeal Committee of their Lordships' House to grant leave to appeal. But he was wrong about that.

4. At the hearing before the Professional Conduct Committee on 25th March 1996 the appellant was represented by Mr. James Badenoch Q.C. The appellant's conviction fell to be considered by the Committee pursuant to section 36(1)(a) of the Medical Act 1983, which reads:-

"Where a fully registered person

(a)is found by the Professional Conduct Committee to have been convicted in the British Islands of a criminal offence, whether while so registered or not, ...

the Committee may, if they think fit, direct ...

(ii)that his registration in the Register shall be suspended ... during such period not exceeding twelve months as may be specified in the Direction ..."

5. At the conclusion of the hearing the Chairman announced the Committee's direction in the following terms:-

"Dr. Trivedi, the public and profession expect to be able to rely upon the honesty of registered medical practitioners. Doctors who behave dishonestly undermine the trust which is central to the practice of medicine.

6. The convictions proved against you in the charge demonstrate systematic dishonesty in the course of your medical practice. On the basis of those convictions alone, and irrespective of your previous history, the Committee have directed the Registrar to suspend your registration for a period of three months."

7. It is unnecessary for their Lordships to consider certain other matters which were before the Committee, which, in the event, the Committee found not to have been proved.

8. The appellant's next line of approach was to invite the Home Secretary to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, on the ground that there was fresh evidence from a Mr. Lyon, which was said to cast doubt on the validity of certain scientific tests which Mr. Lyon had carried out for the purpose of the trial. But in a letter dated 4th November 1996, a copy of which has been made available to their Lordships, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office informed the appellant's Member of Parliament that

the Home Secretary could find no grounds for action in respect of the appellant's conviction.

9. The appellant's last hope was to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights. On 9th January 1996 the appellant's then solicitors wrote to the Commission in Strasbourg. Their Lordships understand that the case has now been registered. But there has been no decision on admissibility: see the Commission's letter dated 3rd June 1996. So the case may never reach the European Court, and even if it does, the Court could not quash the conviction.

10. The appellant has appeared before their Lordships, and urged a number of different points. There was no substance in any of them. He asserts his innocence. But the conviction stands. It was properly proved before the Professional Conduct Committee, as was accepted by counsel on his behalf. There was nothing the appellant could say. The Committee was entitled to act on the conviction and pass the sentence which they did. Accordingly their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellant must pay the respondent's costs.