Azam, R (on the application of) v Health Professions Council

A professional disciplinary tribunal may refuse an adjournment where the request is made at the last moment, the hearing has begun, witnesses are available, and the public interest supports proceeding. An appellate court should interfere with a disciplinary penalty only where it falls outside the range of reasonable responses to the misconduct. That restraint is especially appropriate where the tribunal includes fellow professionals able to assess the impact of the conduct on professional life.

The claimant, a registered biomedical scientist, appealed against findings and a six-month suspension imposed by the Health Professions Council’s Conduct and Competence Committee. The tribunal had refused an adjournment requested on the morning of the hearing because the claimant’s intended union representative was unavailable. It proceeded in his absence, found his fitness to practise impaired following convictions for common assault and criminal damage, and imposed suspension. The claimant challenged the refusal to adjourn and contended that the penalty was excessively severe.

1. Adjournment. The tribunal was entitled to refuse the claimant’s application. The request was made only by email on the morning of the hearing, after the scheduled start time, when witnesses were available. The tribunal had been properly advised as to its powers, and its decision disclosed no error of law. The first ground therefore failed.
2. Penalty. Professional disciplinary tribunals are generally best placed to assess the seriousness of professional misconduct. An appellate court should be slow to interfere with sentence except in a clear case. The penalty must fall within the range of potentially reasonable responses to the conduct. The six-month suspension, although severe, was within that range. The tribunal was entitled to take account of the claimant’s failure to attend and its resulting lack of confidence that he would engage with conditions of practice. The appeal against sentence therefore failed.
3. Review of suspension. The court noted that the claimant could ask the Committee to review the suspension under Article 30 and Regulation 30(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The court considered that his absence had resulted from advice from his union, and that subsequent evidence of abstinence from alcohol, improved conduct and changed circumstances could be relevant to the Committee’s assessment. The Committee retained responsibility for deciding whether those matters allayed the original public-interest concerns.
4. The appeal was dismissed. The Council was awarded a contribution towards its costs assessed at £5,000.

The judgment records an appeal from findings and a six-month suspension imposed by the Health Professions Council Conduct and Competence Committee. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and ordered a £5,000 contribution towards the Council’s costs.