29.44BHabib Khan v General Pharmaceutical Company [2016] UKSC 64
The GPC’s professional conduct review committee had no power to increase the sanction originally imposed on the basis that it had been inadequate
Facts: the GPC’s fitness to practice committee directed Mr Khan’s removal from the register because he had been convicted of offences of domestic violence. It took the view that the alternative sanction, 12 months’ suspension, was insufficient. The Extra Division allowed Mr Khan’s appeal on the basis that, had the fitness to practice committee suspended Mr Khan for 12 months and expressed the view that this period of suspension was inadequate, the GPC’s professional conduct review committee could have increased the period of suspension when it considered the case.
Judgment: the Supreme Court (Neuberger, Wilson, Reed, Carnwath and Hodge JJSC) held that (i) the legislation did not permit any ‘middle’ way between suspension for 12 months and removal from the register (with the ability to apply for reinstatement after five years); (ii) the review committee’s function was limited to monitoring the steps taken towards professional rehabilitation and its function did not include increasing the sanction imposed earlier; and (iii) the sanction of removal from the register had been excessive. The test was whether the sanction ‘was appropriate and necessary in the public interest or was excessive and disproportionate’: Ghosh v GMC [2001] UKPC 29, [2001] 1 WLR 1915. An appellate court’s approach had to be diffident, but less so when the misconduct did not relate to professional performance: Dad v GDC [2000] 1 WLR 1538. In this case, Mr Khan’s misconduct did not relate to his professional performance and he had genuinely acknowledged his fault: the appropriate sanction had been 12 months’ suspension.