General Medical Council v British Broadcasting Corpn

A tribunal is not a court for criminal-contempt purposes merely because it decides issues judicially, sits in public, hears sworn evidence or follows court-like procedures. The relevant question is whether it forms part of the state’s judicial system and exercises the judicial power of the state. A professional disciplinary tribunal may instead exercise statutory self-regulatory functions. An injunction under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 requires a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Speculative effects on potential witnesses and public perceptions did not meet that threshold. A possible inherent jurisdiction over non-curial tribunals was left undecided and, if it exists, would be reserved for clear cases of grave interference.

The General Medical Council appealed from an order of Penry-Davey J refusing an injunction to postpone a proposed Panorama broadcast concerning disciplinary proceedings before its Professional Conduct Committee against three doctors involved in paediatric cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. The GMC also sought a declaration that the Committee was a court for the purposes of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The High Court held that the Committee was not such a court and that the proposed broadcast created no substantial risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings. The appeal concerned the status of the Committee, the statutory threshold for injunctive relief, and whether the High Court had an inherent jurisdiction to restrain interference with a non-curial tribunal.

Decision

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The judgment of the court was prepared by Robert Walker LJ.

1. Meaning of court. Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 reflects the common-law concept of a court for contempt purposes. Applying the reasoning in Attorney-General v BBC [1981] A.C. 303, a court is a body established by law to exercise the judicial power of the state. Judicial or court-like functions alone are insufficient. The court also applied the reasoning in Royal Aquarium & Summer & Winter Garden Society v Parkinson [1892] 1 QB 431 and the approach stated in Badry v D.P.P. [1983] 2 AC 297.
2. Status of the Professional Conduct Committee. The Committee performs a recognisably judicial function in the public interest and follows detailed procedures resembling those of courts. It is nevertheless a statutory committee of a professional body exercising the medical profession’s self-regulatory power and duty. It is not part of the state judicial system and its proceedings are therefore not proceedings before a court for criminal-contempt purposes. Pickering v Liverpool Daily Post [1991] 2 A.C. 370 was distinguishable because the reasoning concerning a mental health tribunal depended on the special context of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and the tribunal’s power to affect personal liberty.
3. Risk of prejudice. Section 2(2) requires a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The Committee members could reasonably be expected to disregard external pressure. Possible influence on witnesses or on the Bristol trust’s employment decisions was materially different from serious prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings and did not satisfy the statutory threshold.
4. Non-curial tribunal. The court left open whether an inherent jurisdiction exists to restrain interference with a non-curial tribunal. If it exists, it would arise only in a clear case of grave interference. Possible protection at the suit of the Attorney-General, as guardian of the public interest, and the more doubtful position of a private litigant were obiter. No such case was shown here.

1. Court of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the refusal of both the injunction and the declaration.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Penry-Davey J dismissed the GMC’s applications and granted leave to appeal.