General Medical Council, R (on the application of) v Jena

When extending an interim suspension order in disciplinary proceedings, the court must protect the respondent’s procedural rights, particularly where the respondent is unrepresented or may not know of the hearing. An extension may be granted where the disciplinary hearing has been adjourned, provided that the respondent has a practical opportunity to seek review or discharge of the order. The court may give liberty to apply on appropriate notice during that period.

The General Medical Council applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on Dr Jena. He was in prison, with an estimated release date in January 2006, and the disciplinary proceedings had been adjourned at his request until several months into the following year. He did not attend or have representation, and the court was not satisfied that he knew of the application. The central issue was how to extend the order while adequately protecting his rights.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for 12 months from the date of judgment, expiring on 12 November 2006.

2. Because the defendant was unrepresented and might not have known of the hearing, the court considered how best to protect his interests while avoiding unnecessary expense and difficulty.

3. The defendant had the opportunity, within approximately three months, to make representations to the Committee against continuation of the order. His rights were therefore adequately protected by granting liberty to apply on 14 days’ notice to discharge the order.

4. That liberty to apply was limited to the period between judgment and the anticipated review hearing. There was no order as to costs, and a transcript was to be supplied to the defendant.