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

Factual and Procedural Background

The Professional Conduct Committee of Company A commenced an inquiry in October 1997 against the Appellant, who was then Chief Executive of Company B. The allegations concerned an alleged failure to act on concerns about paediatric cardiac surgery performed at The Hospital in The City. During the inquiry, counsel for the Appellant requested that the Committee’s Chairman—or the entire Committee—recuse themselves for real or apparent bias, citing the Chairman’s personal connection to paediatric cardiac treatment for his grandchild and the tenor of his questioning. On 11 December 1997, the Committee deliberated in camera and rejected that request.

After dismissing a “no-case” submission, the Committee continued to deliberate in camera and, on 18 June 1998, directed that the Appellant’s name be erased from the medical register.

An appeal against that substantive decision is scheduled for hearing on 10 February 1999. The present opinion concerns only an interlocutory application by the Appellant seeking disclosure of untranscribed shorthand notes of the Committee’s in-camera discussions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Privy Council should order disclosure of untranscribed shorthand notes of the Professional Conduct Committee’s in-camera deliberations in aid of the pending appeal alleging bias.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The disclosure request, though unprecedented, was justified by the “exceptional circumstances” surrounding the allegation of bias against the Committee’s Chairman.
• Access to the in-camera discussions was necessary to mount an effective appeal on the bias ground.

Respondent's Arguments

• The application was unprecedented and would undermine the confidentiality essential to frank in-camera deliberations.
• The in-camera discussions were protected by public interest immunity, which the Appellant had not shown good and sufficient reason to displace.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Board emphasized that the application sought to intrude upon confidential deliberations traditionally protected by public interest immunity. Accepting the request would, in the Board’s assessment, “seriously inhibit freedom of discussion” during future in-camera sessions. The Board found the circumstances neither exceptional nor compelling enough to override that immunity. Accordingly, the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of disciplinary deliberations outweighed the Appellant’s asserted need for disclosure.

Holding and Implications

Interlocutory application REFUSED. The Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of Company A for this petition.

Implications: The decision maintains the long-standing principle that deliberations of professional disciplinary bodies remain confidential and reinforces public interest immunity in such contexts. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirmation of that principle.