The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

Thear-Graham v. The General Medical Council (Medical Act 1983) [1999] UKPC 18 (14th April, 1999)

Privy Council Appeal No. 65 of 1998

Dr. Michael Robert Thear-Graham Petitioner

v.

The General Medical Council Respondent

FROM

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

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

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL UPON A

Delivered the 14th April 1999

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

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Steyn

[Orally Delivered by Lord Steyn]

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

1. This is the judgment of the Judicial Committee. There is before their Lordships Dr. Thear-Graham’s petition to restore his appeal which was dismissed on 24th February 1999 on which occasion Dr. Thear-Graham had not attended.

2. The background to the matter is an inquiry before the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council (to which their Lordships will refer as the PCC) from 14th to 16th September 1998. There were charges under two broad heads. The first related to Dr. Thear-Graham’s conviction at the Cardiff Crown Court in November 1997 of seven drugs offences; those offences included offences of supplying drugs. The result of the convictions was the imposition of a term of six months’ imprisonment. The second head of charges related to allegations of serious professional misconduct involving irresponsible prescribing of drugs.

3. At the hearing Dr. Thear-Graham admitted the convictions. He thereafter left the hearing and did not present any evidence in opposition to the evidence that was led against him under the second head. The PCC found the charges proved; found him guilty of serious professional misconduct; ordered that his name should be erased and that he should immediately be suspended. He lodged an appeal. He failed to take all the necessary steps prescribed by the Rules. On 24th February the respondent applied for and obtained an order that the appeal to be dismissed. That was the occasion on which Dr. Thear-Graham did not appear. It is now clear that he had experienced travel difficulties and their Lordships fully accept that that is a reasonable explanation for his non-appearance on that occasion and that presents no hurdle to him on this petition.

 

4. There is now before their Lordships the petition to restore the appeal. In the view of the Board it is necessary to consider the question whether Dr. Thear-Graham has any reasonable or arguable prospect of success if the appeal were to be restored. If there is no prospect, and if his appeal is bound to fail, then there is no point in restoring the appeal.

 

5. Their Lordships confine themselves to the convictions which Dr. Thear-Graham admitted. Those convictions justified the orders made by the PCC. The PCC came to the conclusion that Dr. Thear-Graham was guilty of professional misconduct and, that his name should be erased. The PCC came to that conclusion in respect of charges under both heads. Exactly the same orders would have been made for the erasure of his name and for suspension if that had been the only matter before the PCC.

 

6. Their Lordships have listened carefully to what has been said today, but nothing has been put before their Lordships that casts any doubt either on the convictions or on the consequential determinations and directions by the PCC. An attempt was made to put before their Lordships the idea that the determination as to sentence was an unfair or an unreasonable one. There is simply no prospect whatever of such an argument being sustained. The appeal is bound to fail. Their Lordships will dismiss this petition. The petitioner must pay the respondent’s costs of this petition.