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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy