Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 14230/88

by Moses Ernest TAYLOR-PEARCE

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

9 October 1989, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

M. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 June 1988

by M. T. against the United Kingdom and registered on 20 September

1988 under file No. 14230/88;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1945 and resident

in London. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows.

The applicant was registered as a doctor with the General

Medical Council (the "G.M.C.") in July 1970. From 1979 to 1983 the

applicant worked as doctor for the Gwent Health Authority (the

"Authority"). On 14 November 1983, the applicant commenced a four

year contract of employment with the Authority as Senior Registrar in

geriatric medicine.

In October 1985, the applicant was admitted to a mental

institution for three months.

On 6 June 1986, the applicant was informed that the G.M.C. was

to hold an enquiry into an allegation by the Authority that the

applicant in making his application for the post of Senior Registrar

had falsely submitted that he held the qualifications MRCP (IRE) 1978

and MRCP (UK) 1981. He was invited to attend a meeting of the

Professional Conduct Committee on 8 July 1986.

The applicant attended the meeting which was adjourned when

the question arose whether he was fit to practise by reason of his

mental condition. The Committee decided to refer this issue to the

Health Committee and invited the applicant to submit to a psychiatric

examination.

The Health Committee considered the matter on 29 October 1986,

but adjourned it pending a medical examination of the applicant.

On 24 June 1987, the Health Committee decided that the

applicant's fitness to practise was not seriously impaired and that

the Professional Conduct Committee would resume their enquiry into the

charge against the applicant.

On 2 December 1987, the Professional Conduct Committee decided

that the applicant's name be erased from the Register and that he be

immediately suspended. Although the applicant had been invited to

attend, he was neither present or represented.

The applicant appealed against this decision to the Privy

Council. After a hearing held on 5 May 1988 the Privy Council

dismissed his appeal on 25 May 1988.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings

instituted by the G.M.C. He complains that he did not receive a fair

hearing in these proceedings. In particular, the hearing on 8 July

1986 was adjourned before the applicant had submitted his defence and

he was not present or represented at the hearing on 2 December 1987.

He submits that the Committee conducting these proceedings was not

independent and impartial since its members were selected by the

G.M.C., which had brought the charge against him. The applicant

further submits that he did not receive a fair trial before the Privy

Council since it refused inter alia to consider certain documents

presented by the applicant which he alleged proved his innocence and

refused his appeal without giving reasons.

The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of the fairness of the proceedings

before the General Medical Council and the Privy Council and of the

length of time of these proceedings. He invokes Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which provides, inter alia:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is

entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable

time by an independent and impartial tribunal established

by law."

The Commission recalls that in the present case the applicant

was suspended and his name struck off the Medical Register following

disciplinary proceedings instituted by the G.M.C., exercising its

power to regulate the conduct of doctors subject to its authority.

This decision, which prevents the applicant from continuing to

exercise his profession as a doctor, constitutes, in the Commission's

opinion, a determination of the applicant's civil rights and

obligations within the meaning of the Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Albert and Le Compte judgment of

10 February 1983, Series A No. 58, p. 11) and the applicant was

accordingly entitled to have his case heard by a tribunal satisfying

the conditions laid down in that provision.

In the case of Albert and Le Compte (Eur. Court H.R., loc.

cit., para. 29), which also concerned the striking off of a doctor

following disciplinary proceedings, the Court stated as follows:

"In many member States of the Council of Europe, the duty

of adjudicating on disciplinary offences is conferred on

jurisdictional organs of professional associations. Even

in instances where Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is applicable,

conferring powers in this manner does not in itself

infringe the Convention (see the above-mentioned Le Compte,

Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A No. 43, p. 23,

first sub-paragraph). Nonetheless, in such circumstances

the Convention calls at least for one of the two following

systems: either the jurisdictional organs themselves comply

with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), or

they do not so comply but are subject to subsequent control by

a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the

guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)."

In the present case, the disciplinary charge against the

applicant was considered first by the Professional Conduct Committee

of the G.M.C. The Commission finds it unnecessary to consider whether

this committee fulfilled the guarantees required by Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention since the Commission finds that, in any

case, the applicant was able to appeal to the Privy Council, which is

a judicial body with full jurisdiction over questions of fact and

law in reviewing a decision of the committee. While the applicant

has complained of the fairness of the proceedings before the Privy

Council, the Commission finds that the applicant has not substantiated

these complaints and that there is no indication on the facts of the

present case that he did not receive a fair hearing before the Privy

Council as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

As regards the applicant's complaint of the length of the

proceedings, the Commission recalls that the applicant was first

informed of the charges made against him on 6 June 1986 and that his

final appeal was dismissed on 25 May 1988 almost 2 years later

following two hearings before the Professional Conduct Committee and

an appeal to the Privy Council. The Commission notes that during this

period the hearing of the charge was adjourned pending the referral of

the question of the applicant's mental capacity to the Health

Committee. The Commission finds that in the circumstances of the case

the proceedings did not exceed a reasonable time within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that this application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

M. T. v. UNITED KINGDOM

M. T. v. UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI