Lewis v General Osteopathic Council

On a statutory appeal against an interim suspension order, the court must assess whether the professional tribunal’s decision was wrong or affected by serious procedural irregularity. The tribunal is entitled to substantial weight because of its specialist knowledge, but the court must not simply adopt its decision. An interim suspension may properly be imposed where the evidence establishes a risk of significant harm to patients and suspension is necessary and proportionate pending the final fitness-to-practise hearing. An improper additional consideration, such as acting in the practitioner’s own interests, does not invalidate the order where patient safety was the substantial and operative basis for it.

The appellant, an osteopath, appealed against a committee of the General Osteopathic Council decision in August 2015 imposing a further six-month interim suspension order. The order was made after the appellant, who represented herself, left the resumed fitness-to-practise hearing during cross-examination concerning her bipolar affective disorder. The committee adjourned to attempt contact, then proceeded in her absence after receiving legal advice.

The appellant challenged the order on procedural and substantive grounds. The central issues were whether the committee had acted procedurally unfairly and whether the evidence justified a further suspension pending conclusion of the fitness-to-practise proceedings.

1. Nature of the proceedings. The court treated the matter as a statutory appeal. The relevant question was whether the committee’s decision was wrong or affected by serious procedural irregularity.
2. Procedure. No procedural irregularity had occurred. The committee had taken legal advice, adjourned to seek contact with the appellant, and proceeded in her absence only after that attempt had failed.
3. Approach on appeal. The court should accord considerable weight to a specialist fitness-to-practise committee’s assessment of professional requirements and patient expectations. That deference did not mean that the court simply adopted the committee’s decision.
4. Patient safety. The committee was entitled to rely on the psychiatric evidence that the appellant had a relapsing and remitting condition, was not taking medication, and might relapse within weeks. Its findings concerning the risk of significant harm to patients justified an interim suspension pending the final hearing. The order was a necessary and proportionate response to that risk.
5. Improper additional reason. The committee had also stated that the order was made in the appellant’s own interests. That was not a legitimate statutory consideration. However, patient safety was plainly the most significant part of the reasoning, so the additional reason did not render the order invalid.
6. Disposition. The court could identify no basis for intervention. The statutory appeal was dismissed. The fitness-to-practise hearing was to continue before the committee.

The judgment describes proceedings before a professional committee, including earlier interim suspension orders beginning in or about March 2014. The committee imposed a further six-month interim suspension order in August 2015. The High Court treated the present proceedings as a statutory appeal and dismissed it.