Preedy v General Optical Council

A professional disciplinary tribunal has a discretion whether to adjourn when a registrant is absent or unable to participate. The tribunal must balance the registrant’s position with fairness to the regulator, witnesses and the public interest, assessing the medical evidence available. A brief medical note without a proper diagnosis, prognosis or clear statement of unfitness need not require an adjournment.

Disciplinary proceedings may rely on criminal convictions unless the evidence genuinely undermines them. Erasure may be justified despite prior criminal punishment where necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession.

The appellant, a dispensing optician, appealed under section 23 of the Opticians Act 1989 against the decision of the General Optical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee to erase his name from the register.

The Committee had found impairment based on convictions for fraud, unregistered sight testing, forged signatures, false claims and failures to disclose investigations and convictions. The appellant challenged the refusal to adjourn for health reasons, the treatment of evidence said to undermine his convictions, the Committee’s assessment of the amount of fraud, and the sanction of erasure.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Committee had correctly treated the adjournment application as a discretionary decision. Rule 21 of the General Optical Council Fitness to Practise Rules 2005 was not directly applicable because the appellant was represented, but its broad approach was relevant. The Committee was also entitled to apply the principles identified in R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1, including the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in R v Jones [2001] EWCA Crim 168.
2. The medical material did not state that the appellant was unfit to attend or engage in the proceedings. It contained no proper diagnosis and no meaningful indication of prognosis. The Committee had taken reasonable steps to clarify the position, balanced the appellant’s interests against those of the witness, fairness to the Council and the public interest, and was entitled to refuse an adjournment.
3. The Committee was entitled to take account of Dr Yaqub’s suspension and subsequent administrative removal from the medical register. His written evidence was internally difficult to reconcile and, even at its highest, did not suggest that he had signed the large number of disputed forms. It could not undermine the convictions which formed the central basis of the disciplinary case.
4. The Committee had not erred in assessing the extent of the fraud. The figures used were those set out and explained in the criminal proceedings.
5. Erasure was lawful notwithstanding the appellant’s previous criminal sentence and the absence of evidence of continuing danger. Professional discipline serves not only to protect the public from repetition but also to protect the reputation of the profession. Given the extensive frauds, erasure was described as almost inevitable.
6. The respondent was awarded its appeal costs, summarily assessed at £7,200 including VAT.

• General Optical Council Fitness to Practise Committee: found the appellant’s fitness to practise impaired and ordered erasure from the register with immediate suspension.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal under section 23 of the Opticians Act 1989 and awarded the respondent its assessed costs.