The Professional Standards Authority v The General Chiropractic Council & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE LANG
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Health Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Briggs, a chiropractor, was found guilty of professional misconduct for treating patients while registered as 'non-practicing' and without insurance. The PSA referred the case to the High Court, claiming that the PCC's decision not to charge dishonesty and the leniency of the six-month suspension without review were procedurally flawed. The High Court found procedural errors and undue leniency, prompting a remittal to a newly constituted panel for a re-hearing, including added allegations of dishonesty.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Lang:
The Professional Standards Authority (“the PSA”) has referred to the High Court a decision of the Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) of the General Chiropractic Council (“GCC”), made on 5th November 2013 in respect of a registered chiropractor, Mr Briggs.
The PCC found that, in February 2012, Mr Briggs was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct by providing chiropractic treatment to patients when registered as "non-practising" and without having indemnity insurance. The PCC imposed a six month suspension order, without provision for any review.
The PSA has referred this case to the High Court under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (" the 2002 Act "), on the following grounds:
The GCC as prosecutor erred in failing to bring charges of dishonesty against Mr Briggs in respect of representations that he made to his employers concerning his registration and insurance.
On the facts found proved, the sanction was unduly lenient having regard to the Registrant's lack of insight, remediation or remorse, and the Committee’s own finding that there was a risk of repetition.
The Committee failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.
The GCC has consented to the case being remitted for a full re-hearing by a freshly constituted panel of the PCC, on the three grounds relied upon by the PSA, with further particulars of unacceptable professional conduct added. The PSA now asks the Court to make an order solely in terms of the consent order (which is narrower in scope than the referral sought in the grounds of appeal).
Mr Briggs does not consent to the proposed remittal. Mr Briggs has not attended the hearing as he lives in Australia, but he has submitted written representations, which I have read and taken into account.
The Charge
The charge against Mr Briggs (as amended) was as follows:
“That, being a registered chiropractor:
1. At all material times you practised as a chiropractor at the Kingdom Chiropractic Clinic, 205 South Street, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9EF and 31 Bonny Gate, Cupar, Fife KY15 4BU (the clinics).
2. In around February 2012 you provided chiropractic treatment to one or more patients at the clinics when you were registered with the General Chiropractic Council as a non-practising chiropractor.
In around February 2012, you provided chiropractic treatment to one or more patients without having appropriate professional indemnity insurance in place"