Regulatory Newsletter Winter 2018


Please find the Winter edition of Capsticks’ Regulatory Newsletter. In this edition we have included reviews of the following cases:

  • Solicitors Regulation Authority v James and others – in which the Court held that when considering whether exceptional circumstances exist such that a sanction less than striking off the roll is appropriate for a dishonest solicitor, the focus of the tribunal should be on the nature, scope and extent of the dishonesty itself.
  • General Medical Council v Chandra – a Court of Appeal decision which overturned the restoration to the register of a doctor who had previously been found guilty of inappropriate sexual misconduct with a patient.
  • Bawa-Garba v General Medical Council – a Court of Appeal case in which it was held that a sanction of suspension for a doctor guilty of the gross negligent manslaughter of a patient imposed by a fitness to practise panel was not wrong.
  • Raychaudhuri v General Medical Council – a Court of Appeal case in which the original findings of the panel on the question of a doctor’s dishonesty were upheld, after the High Court had overturned them.
  • Manak v Solicitors Regulation Authority- in which the Court held that the SDT should have invited submissions before imposing restrictions on practice for an indefinite period and given reasons for doing so.
  • Hill v General Medical Council – a case in which the Court commented on the need for proportionality in the length of fitness to practise hearings.

Please do feel free to circulate the newsletter internally within your organisation as you wish.