Ireland & Anor v Health and Care Professions Council

Under the Health and Social Work Profession Order 2001, an allegation means the facts and matters alleged to impair a registrant’s fitness to practise, rather than the whole evidential case. The Council and Investigating Committee have implied powers to reformulate or amend an allegation, provided the registrant understands the case and can respond. Article 22(6) permits a new or expanded allegation arising from the same underlying facts to be referred after an earlier referral. General statutory powers cannot override the specific regulatory scheme.

Two practitioner psychologists challenged decisions of the Health and Care Professions Council’s Investigating Committee. In each case, an allegation had first been referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee. The Council later formulated additional allegations arising from the same or substantially the same facts and referred them to the Investigating Committee under article 22(6) of the Health and Social Work Profession Order 2001. The claimants argued that the Council and Investigating Committee lacked jurisdiction to revisit or expand the matters after the first referral. They also challenged the absence of reasons and alleged procedural unfairness. The central issue was whether article 22(6) permitted the further allegations to be investigated and referred onward.

1. Judicial review dismissed. The Investigating Committee had jurisdiction to consider and refer the additional allegations to the Conduct and Competence Committee.
2. The Council is a statutory body with no inherent jurisdiction. In this context, “allegation” means the facts and matters alleged to impair fitness to practise. It is confined to the formulated allegation and does not include the supporting evidential material. The Council may reformulate, reconstitute and expand an allegation, provided the registrant understands the case to be met and has an opportunity to respond. This conclusion was supported by Attorney-General & Ephraim Hutchings v Great Eastern Railway [1880] Law Rep 5 HL 473.
3. The Investigating Committee has implied power to amend an allegation during its investigation. Once a case has been referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee, that committee cannot amend it, and the Investigating Committee cannot revisit the case without a fresh reference from the Council.
4. Article 22(6), read with article 22(5), permits a new or expanded allegation to be referred after an earlier referral. The later allegation is not the same allegation as the earlier one. This applies both where an entirely new allegation emerges and where a new fact gives rise to a further head or element of charge. Section 12 of the Interpretation Act does not prevent that construction because the contrary intention appears from articles 22(5) and 22(6).
5. The Council’s failure, if any, fully to investigate the original allegation does not deprive it of the article 22(6) power. The court rejected reliance on article 21(1), paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 1, and implied power as independent bases. The latter could not escape the reasoning in R (Gorlov) v The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2001] EWHC Admin 220. The remaining grounds concerning reasons and procedural fairness did not affect the result.

First-instance judicial review in the High Court (Administrative Court). No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.