Goodwin v Health and Care Professions Council

On a statutory appeal from a professional disciplinary tribunal, the High Court may allow an appeal where the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. The court conducts a secondary judgment and is not limited to legal error, but must respect the tribunal’s expertise on professional standards and will be slow to reject findings based on live witness evidence. A tribunal may assess a newly qualified professional’s competence during employment despite academic qualifications or professional certification. Comparisons with colleagues’ performance do not answer allegations concerning the appellant’s own conduct and competence. Sanctions attract equivalent respect where the tribunal has considered proportionality, mitigation, aggravation and protection of the public.

Edwin Onovughakpor Goodwin, a biomedical scientist, appealed against findings and a 12-month suspension imposed by the Health and Care Professions Council’s Conduct and Competence Committee. The Committee found that he had failed to meet required competency, time-management and health-and-safety standards, that his fitness to practise was impaired, and that his conduct risked public safety and damaged the profession’s reputation.

He challenged the delay, the panel’s composition and expertise, the assessment and supervision process, defects in the hospital’s log book, factual findings, reliance on hospital witnesses, and the sanction. The central issue was whether the Committee’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The High Court had jurisdiction under Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, art 38. As a statutory appeal, it was governed by Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including rule 52.11(3).

2. The court’s task was not confined to legal error. It could allow an appeal because the Committee was wrong in its assessment of the facts. However, the court had to give respect to the Committee as the body best qualified to assess professional standards and the measures needed to protect the public and the profession’s reputation. It would be slow to characterise as wrong a finding substantially dependent on the credibility of witnesses who had given live evidence. The approach in Azzam v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 2711 (Admin) was applicable to appeals from the HCPC.

3. The delay between the self-referral and the hearing was not excessive and did not breach the reasonable-time requirement in art 6 of the ECHR. Article 6 did not require the state to provide representation in civil proceedings. The absence of an interim order did not establish disadvantage, since such an order would address interim protection rather than determine the merits.

4. The Committee was entitled to accept evidence that a newly qualified biomedical scientist, including one holding the appellant’s qualifications, could properly undergo induction and competency checks before autonomous practice. It was also entitled to accept the hospital witnesses’ evidence, resolve the dispute concerning the initials on forms, and treat the incomplete log book as non-determinative where other feedback and evidence had been given.

5. The Committee was concerned with the appellant’s own conduct and competence. Evidence that other staff had made comparable or worse errors was beside the point. The Committee was entitled to prefer detailed employment evidence over earlier academic and certification assessments and to find impairment of fitness to practise.

6. The 12-month suspension was open to the Committee. It had considered the seriousness of the misconduct, the absence of actual patient harm, the appellant’s early career and hard work, and the proportionality of striking him off. Its conclusion was not wrong.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the Conduct and Competence Committee’s decision of 17 October 2013 dismissed.
2. HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee: allegations proved, fitness to practise found impaired, and 12-month suspension imposed.