Roylance v. The General Medical Council (Medical Act 1983)

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

Privy Council Appeal No. 49 of 1998

Dr. John Roylance

Petitioner

v.

The

General Medical Council

Respondent

FROM

THE

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

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

ORAL

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE

OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL UPON A

PETITION UNDER THE MEDICAL ACT 1983,

Delivered

the 19th January 1999

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

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Steyn

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Sir Christopher Slade

[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.

[3]