Stefan v. The General Medical Council (Health Committee of the GMC)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed from a decision of the Health Committee of the Respondent given on 24 February 1997, which found that the Appellant’s fitness to practise medicine was “seriously impaired” and ordered a twelve-month suspension of her registration. The Committee’s concern centred on the Appellant’s refusal to submit to continuing psychiatric supervision and to agree to conditions designed to safeguard patients.

This was the seventh Health Committee hearing concerning the Appellant. Earlier hearings in June 1993, June 1994, February 1995, and February 1996 had all resulted in findings of seriously impaired fitness to practise. Conditions were imposed in 1993 and 1994; suspensions were ordered in 1995 (eight months) and 1996 (twelve months) after the Appellant again declined psychiatric supervision. Two previous appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1993 and 1995 had been dismissed for want of any question of law under section 40(5) of the Medical Act 1983. The present decision concerns the Appellant’s third appeal to the Privy Council.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appeal identified any “question of law” within the meaning of section 40(5) of the Medical Act 1983 so as to fall within the jurisdiction of the Privy Council.
2. Whether, on the evidence before it, the Health Committee acted lawfully in concluding that the Appellant’s fitness to practise was seriously impaired and in imposing a twelve-month suspension because of her refusal to accept psychiatric supervision.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• No existing health grounds justified restricting her medical practice; her only condition was an occasional cardiac arrhythmia for which sedentary work was recommended.
• The Health Committee had breached its own regulations and acted unlawfully and abusively, including alleged breaches of statutory duty.
• Her case should never have been referred to the Health Committee.

No detailed arguments from the Respondent are recorded in the opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Judicial Committee, constituted by Judge Nicholls, Judge Cooke, and Judge Clyde, reiterated that an appeal from the Health Committee lies only on a question of law. After reviewing the Appellant’s written and oral submissions, the Committee found none of her points raised a question of law. It observed that the Health Committee had evidence supporting its conclusion, specifically the Appellant’s persistent refusal to accept psychiatric supervision, which justified the finding of seriously impaired fitness to practise. Accordingly, the prerequisites for appellate intervention were not met.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

The Health Committee’s order of a twelve-month suspension remains in force. The decision carries no wider doctrinal significance; it applies established principles governing statutory appeals limited to questions of law and sets no new precedent.