[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions >> Roylance v. The General Medical Council (Medical Act 1983) [1999] UKPC 3 (19th January, 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1999/3.html Cite as: [1999] UKPC 3

[New search] [Help]

Roylance v. The General Medical Council (Medical Act 1983) [1999] UKPC 3 (19th January, 1999)

Dr. John Roylance Petitioner

v.

The General Medical Council Respondent

FROM

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL UPON A

Delivered the 19th January 1999

------------------

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Steyn

[Delivered by Lord Steyn]

------------------

1. In October 1997 an Inquiry by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council started, amongst others, against the present appellant. Broadly speaking the case against the appellant was that he failed in his duty as Chief Executive of the United Bristol Hospitals Healthcare N.H.S. Trust to respond to concerns about standards of paediatric cardiac surgery performed at the Bristol Royal Infirmary by two surgeons, who were also respondents at the Inquiry. In the course of the Inquiry counsel for the appellant invited the Chairman of the Committee to stand down on grounds of real or apparent bias, or for the committee to stand down on the same ground. It was argued that the danger of bias arose in part because of the Chairman’s involvement in paediatric cardiac treatment then being given to his grandson and because of the manner of his questioning of certain witnesses. On 11th December 1997 the Committee deliberated in camera and dismissed the application.

 

2. The Committee then considered a no case submission in camera and dismissed it. Subsequently, the Committee considered the remaining issues in camera in various sessions. On the 18th June 1998 the Committee directed that the appellant’s name be erased from the register.

 

3. On Wednesday, 10th February this year the present appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee is due to be heard. The merits of the appeal are not before the Board. A ground of appeal is that the Chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee should have discharged himself from the Inquiry on the grounds of bias or apparent bias.

 

4. The appellant now seeks an interlocutory order directing the untranscribed shorthand notes covering in camera deliberations of the committee to be disclosed. Their Lordships are satisfied that such an order would be inappropriate. It is acknowledged to be an unprecedented attempt to probe into in camera discussions. Counsel submits that the exceptional circumstances of the case warrant such an order. Their Lordships are wholly unpersuaded that this case can be so categorised. If the submission were to be accepted it would seriously inhibit freedom of discussion during in camera sessions. It is ruled out in the present case by public interest immunity attaching to the in camera discussions of the Professional Conduct Committee. Their Lordships are not satisfied that there are any good and sufficient reasons overriding that immunity.

 

5. On the materials presently before the Board this interlocutory application is refused. The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs of this petition.