Sokunbi v Health Professions Council

On an appeal under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 52.11, the High Court ordinarily reviews rather than rehearse the professional tribunal’s decision. It should show significant respect for findings based on documentary material, particularly where the tribunal has considered the evidence carefully and applied professional judgment. Intervention is justified only where the decision was wrong in the requisite sense or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. The absence of expert handwriting evidence does not prevent a tribunal from finding forgery where the documentary and circumstantial evidence provides a proper basis. Findings of repeated dishonesty may support a conclusion that fitness to practise is seriously impaired and that striking off is appropriate.

The claimant appealed under article 38 of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001 against a Conduct and Competence Committee Panel decision made under article 29. The Panel found that he had made false employment statements, created and submitted false employment-history forms, forged signatures, made a false illness declaration, and obtained compassionate leave while working elsewhere and receiving duplicate pay. It found his fitness to practise seriously impaired and directed that he be struck off the register of physiotherapists.

The central issue was whether the Panel’s decision was wrong, or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity, within CPR 52.11.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Panel’s decision was not wrong or unjust within CPR 52.11. The High Court should be slow to interfere with a carefully considered decision of a professional panel, including findings of fact based on documentary material, even where the panel did not hear the registrant’s live evidence.
2. The Panel was entitled, on the documentary and circumstantial evidence, to find that the claimant had falsely described work at the Sportswise Clinic, had created and submitted false employment-history forms, and had forged signatures. Expert handwriting evidence was not a necessary precondition to those findings. The Panel could infer responsibility from the claimant’s interest in the applications, his access to the relevant information, the timing and source of the faxes, and the absence of a plausible alternative explanation.
3. The Panel was likewise entitled to find that the claimant had made a false illness declaration to the University of Lagos and had dishonestly obtained compassionate leave from ATOS while working for RIG and receiving payment from both organisations. Its rejection of the claimant’s explanation was open to it on the evidence.
4. Given the findings on the substantive charges, the Panel was entitled to conclude that repeated dishonesty seriously impaired the claimant’s fitness to practise and that striking him off the register was the appropriate sanction. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

The appeal was brought to the High Court under article 38 of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001 against the Conduct and Competence Committee Panel’s order dated 19 July 2012. The Panel had made findings under article 29 and directed that the claimant be struck off. The High Court dismissed the appeal.