Ahmed, R (on the application of) v General Optical Council

On an appeal from a professional disciplinary tribunal, the High Court conducts a rehearing rather than a judicial review, but gives appropriate respect to the tribunal’s factual findings and professional judgment. A conviction does not automatically establish current impairment. The tribunal must assess present fitness, while taking past conduct into account and looking forwards to public protection rather than backwards to punishment. Dishonesty outside professional practice may impair fitness where it is capable of undermining public confidence. Sanction must remain proportionate to the conduct and impairment found; there is no automatic tariff for uncommon cases.

Waqar Ahmed, a registered optometrist, appealed under the Opticians Act 1989 against a Fitness to Practise Committee decision finding his fitness to practise impaired and suspending him for 12 months. The finding followed convictions for speeding and wilfully obstructing a police constable by giving false identity details, followed by repeated denials.

The appeal challenged the Committee’s treatment of insight, subsequent speeding points, current impairment, procedural fairness and sanction. The central issues were whether the impairment finding was wrong and whether the maximum period of suspension was proportionate.

1. Appeal on impairment. The appeal was by way of rehearing, not review or a de novo hearing. The High Court had to decide whether the Committee was wrong, giving appropriate weight to its specialist experience, its opportunity to see the witnesses and its professional judgment. That respect did not prevent correction of material factual or legal errors.
2. Under the Opticians Act 1989, a conviction does not inevitably establish impairment. The relevant question was whether Mr Ahmed was currently impaired. Past conduct and admissions could be considered, but the purpose was protection of the public and maintenance of confidence, not punishment for past wrongdoing. The Committee’s legal direction was sound.
3. The Committee was entitled to regard the repeated dishonesty, lack of insight and minimisation of responsibility as capable of undermining public confidence, even though the conduct did not concern clinical expertise or client care. Conduct outside professional practice could be relevant under the professional code. The criticisms concerning insufficient detail about insight, the additional speeding points and the use of the word currently did not make the proceedings unfair or the decision wrong.
4. The finding of impairment was upheld. The case was close to the line, but the Committee was entitled to reach its evaluative conclusion, including having regard to its two experienced optometrists.
5. Sanction. The 12-month suspension was disproportionate to the impairment finding and the conduct which produced it. The case was not sufficiently common to establish a relevant tariff. The suspension was reduced to four months. No order for costs was made. No review was directed.

The judgment records an appeal to the High Court under section 23G of the Opticians Act 1989 from the Fitness to Practise Committee’s decision of 16 July 2012. The Committee’s finding of impairment was upheld, but the 12-month suspension was reduced to four months.