The Panel considers that, once the error of the GMC’s failure to submit the full documentation to the original screeners was realised, the case should have attracted expeditious handling thereafter. The Panel finds that there was a significant lack of expedition based on the delay between May 2002 and February 2004. The GMC is not to be blamed for the delay that occurred in resolving the judicial review applications; but, once the Court of Appeal gave its judgment, the case again needed to be managed expeditiously, and again the Panel is critical of the delay between the court’s judgment in December 2005 and the service of the Notice of Hearing in April 2008. It was already an old case and the Panel recognises the blight on the career of any doctor to have disciplinary proceedings pending against them for such a long time. The Panel therefore finds that there was unreasonable delay during this period. In the circumstances, the Panel considers that there has been a breach of Dr Spencer’s right under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to have his case resolved within a reasonable time.
The Panel accepts that the ultrasound scans relating to Patient 6 are missing, although the radiology reports of the scans are apparently available. It is possible that other relevant documentation is missing in respect of both sets of allegations. It is also possible that relevant witnesses may not be available. The Panel further accepts that the passage of time is likely to have had an adverse effect on the recollection of those witnesses who are available. It bears in mind that the standards to be applied are the standards which prevailed in the early 1990s. It recognises the risk that the opinions of experts may be influenced by their knowledge of current standards. It is possible that because of the passage of time the doctor will find it more difficult to recollect events and therefore to mount an effective defence.
The Panel considers that, once the error of the GMC’s failure to submit the full documentation to the original screeners was realised, the case should have attracted expeditious handling thereafter. The Panel finds that there was a failure in this regard based on the delay between May 2002 and February 2004. The GMC is not to be blamed for the delay that occurred in resolving the Judicial Review applications, but once the Court of Appeal gave its judgment, the case again needed to be managed expeditiously and again the Panel is critical of the delay between the Court’s judgment in December 2005 and the serving of the Notice of Hearing in April 2008. It was already an old case and the Panel recognises the blight on the career of any doctor to have disciplinary proceedings pending against them for such a long time. The Panel therefore finds there was unreasonable delay during this period. In the circumstances the Panel considers that there has been a breach of Dr Samuels’s right under Article 6 of the ECHR, to have his case resolved within a reasonable time.
The Panel accepts that the ultrasound scans relating to Patient 6 are missing, although the radiology reports of the scans are apparently available. It is possible that other relevant documentation is missing in respect of both sets of allegations. It is also possible that relevant witnesses may not be available. The Panel further accepts that the passage of time is likely to have had an adverse effect on the recollection of those witnesses who are available. It bears in mind that the standards to be applied are the standards which prevailed in the early 1990s. It recognises the risk that the opinions of experts may be influenced by their knowledge of current standards. It is possible that because of the passage of time the doctor will find it more difficult to recollect events and therefore to mount an effective defence.
The Panel considers that, once the error of the GMC’s failure to submit the full documentation to the original screeners was realised, the case should have attracted expeditious handling thereafter. The Panel finds that there was a failure in this regard based on the delay between May 2002 and February 2004. The GMC is not to be blamed for the delay that occurred in resolving the Judicial Review applications, but once the Court of Appeal gave its judgment, the case again needed to be managed expeditiously and again the Panel is critical of the delay between the Court’s judgment in December 2005 and the serving of the Notice of Hearing in April 2008. It was already an old case and the Panel recognises the blight on the career of any doctor to have disciplinary proceedings pending against them for such a long time. The Panel therefore finds there was unreasonable delay during this period. In the circumstances the Panel considers that there has been a breach of Dr Samuels’s right under Article 6 of the ECHR, to have his case resolved within a reasonable time.
No comments:
Post a Comment