Ramsanahie v East Midlands Strategic Health Authority

Permission for judicial review may properly be granted where an appeal panel arguably exceeded its jurisdiction, adopted an impermissible procedure, or denied the claimant a fair opportunity to address material relied upon in reaching its decision.

An appeal body must act within its jurisdiction and fairly. Where its procedure permits consideration of new information, that does not necessarily authorise a prolonged, substantially retrospective rehearing based on an assessment undertaken after the original decision. The panel must define the scope and procedure of any further assessment and allow the affected person to answer the assessment and the underlying case, including through representation and rebutting evidence where fairness requires.

The claimant challenged the October 2012 decision of a RITA E Appeal Panel concerning withdrawal of his National Training Number and the award of a RITA E. The panel had postponed the withdrawal issue in March 2011 pending an independent assessment by NCAS. That assessment took about 19 months and involved a multidisciplinary team.

The claimant argued that the panel lacked jurisdiction to suspend the appeal in that manner, had conducted what was in substance a fresh decision-making process, excluded relevant evidence and representation, and acted unfairly because its chairman also participated in the assessment process. He also challenged the panel’s apparent reconsideration of the RITA E issue. The question was whether there were reasonable prospects of establishing jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, illegality, unreasonableness or failure to consider relevant material.

1. Permission granted. The court granted the claimant’s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. The judgment gave reasons for that interlocutory decision and did not finally determine the substantive grounds.
2. The Appeal Panel was conducting an appeal, not merely a review. It was therefore required to act within its jurisdiction, fairly, and in a manner enabling the claimant to present his case and meet the case against him.
3. It was reasonably arguable that the panel’s jurisdiction under section 13 of the Orange Book permitted it only to allow, dismiss or vary the decision under appeal and conclude the appeal. The power to take account of newly submitted information did not clearly authorise a prolonged assessment of the claimant over a future period, followed by continuation of the appeal nearly two years after the original decision.
4. If the panel had jurisdiction to suspend the decision and obtain the NCAS assessment, it was arguable that it should have defined the assessment’s instructions, parameters and timescale, and specified the procedure after receipt of the report. The claimant should have had a fair opportunity to answer both the report and the underlying case, including the opportunity to address the panel through a representative and submit rebutting evidence.
5. There were arguable procedural fairness concerns arising from the exclusion of evidence about developments after the original decision and from the chairman’s dual role as panel chairman and Deputy Postgraduate Dean. The apparent reconsideration of the RITA E issue also arguably exceeded the panel’s jurisdiction.
6. The claimant therefore had reasonable prospects of success on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity, illegality, Wednesbury unreasonableness, and failure to take account of relevant material.

The judgment concerned a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. No prior court decision is stated in the judgment.