The research looked at a series of recent appeals against decisions of the MPTS, at which the High Court wrestled with the Tribunal’s interpretation of dishonesty.
The research was published in the Journal of Medical Regulation, looked at a series of recent appeals against decisions of the MPTS, at which the High Court wrestled with the Tribunal’s interpretation of dishonesty, where, in cases where the doctor has denied the allegation of misconduct at their MPTS hearing, this denial has resulted in a more severe sanction than might otherwise have been imposed.
The research concluded that:
“The interplay between dishonest acts—whether involving primary or secondary dishonesty—and the potential aggravation of these by mounting a defense which may itself be interpreted as dishonest has long been an issue at Medical Practitioners’ Tribunals. Justice Collins Rice’s 4-point guidance requires tribunals that have found a defense to be dishonest to look at questions such as whether the primary allegation was dishonest, what is being denied and whether the dishonest defense is the only evidence of a lack of insight. In doing so, and by drawing upon determinations made by her fellow High Court judges over a period of 20 years, Justice Collins Rice has finally provided a simple framework by which future Tribunals may reproducibly deal with dishonesty as applied to medical discipline in the UK.”
Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.