General Medical Council v Curca

Interim restrictions on a medical practitioner's registration may be extended where necessary to protect the public, but regulatory proceedings must progress promptly. Public protection is the primary consideration, but it is not the only one. The court must also consider the practitioner's fair-trial rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly where restrictions affect the ability to earn a living. A further extension may be refused if the regulator cannot demonstrate a clear timetable or adequate progress towards resolving outstanding competence issues.

The General Medical Council applied to extend, for three months, conditions imposed on Dr Elena Curca's registration as a doctor. The conditions had been in force since September 2011 after concerns arose about her English-language ability and basic medical knowledge in accident and emergency medicine. A previous extension had been granted by the Administrative Court in March 2013. The central issue was whether a further short extension was justified despite continuing delay in testing her language proficiency and clinical competence.

1. The application was granted and the conditions on registration were extended for the period sought, until 24 March 2014.
2. The court accepted that continued restrictions could be justified by the need to protect the public while concerns about language proficiency and clinical competence remained unresolved.
3. Public protection was the primary consideration, but it was not the only relevant consideration. The court had its own supervisory obligation to ensure that regulatory measures affecting the practitioner's ability to earn a living proceeded compatibly with the fair-trial rights in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
4. The regulator was required to proceed as speedily as possible. The prolonged uncertainty about the appropriate English-language standard was regarded as remarkable, particularly since language criteria could presumably be applied without awaiting possible policy changes.
5. If a future application were made without a clear timetable or adequate explanation for unresolved obstacles, the court might refuse an extension which would otherwise have been granted. Failure to take all reasonable measures to resolve the language issue and proceed to medical testing would significantly affect any future application.

The judgment records that the Administrative Court had granted an earlier extension in March 2013. No citation for that earlier order is stated. The present application for a further extension was granted.