The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

Privy Council Appeal No. 73 of 1997

 

Dr. Mohinder Singh Appellant

v.

The General Medical Council Respondent

 

FROM

 

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

 

---------------

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

Delivered the 13th May 1998

------------------

 

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Clyde

  ·[Delivered by Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

 

-------------------------

 

1. Dr. Mohinder Singh, appeals against a decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council given on 3rd December 1997, whereby his registration was suspended for the maximum period of 12 months.

 

2. On 30th October 1996 Dr. Singh was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court after a contested hearing on ten counts of dishonesty.  On 7th November 1996 he was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years.  He was made subject to a confiscation order in the sum of ,14,694.02, and a costs order in the sum of ,37,500.

 

3. On 12th February 1997 Messrs. Hempsons wrote a letter on Dr. Singh's behalf to be put before a meeting of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee on 20th February, expressing Dr. Singh's shame and deep regret.  However on 30th   April   Dr.   Singh   swore  an  affidavit   indicating dissatisfaction with Messrs. Hempsons' conduct of the case and adding that he did not admit the convictions.  Meanwhile a hearing date had been fixed for 12th May.  On 9th May Dr. Singh made an application before McCullough J. for an order that the date be vacated.  The application was dismissed.  On 16th May the convictions were proved.  The hearing was then adjourned, pending the outcome of Dr. Singh's application for leave to appeal against conviction.  Leave was refused by the single judge in July, and by the Full Court on 27th October.

 

4. On 3rd December Mr. Preston opened the case before the Committee.  It is unnecessary for their Lordships to go into any detail.  The judge had taken a particularly serious view of counts 7 and 8, which covered sickness and invalidity benefit claimed by Dr. Singh from the Department of Health and Social Security, to which he was not entitled, and counts 9 and 10 covering claims for expenses from the Family Health Services Authority for the employment of locums, to which again he was not entitled.  Mr. Murphy then mitigated on Dr. Singh's behalf.

 

5. At the hearing before the Board, at which Miss Cherie Booth Q.C. appeared for Dr. Singh, there was no dispute as to the correct approach.  Miss Booth accepted that it was for her to show that the penalty imposed was wrong in principle, or wholly disproportionate.  She pointed out that there had never been any complaint about Dr. Singh as a doctor.  This is evident by the number of his patients.  During a period between 1991 and 1994 when he was not allowed by the FHSA to take on any partners, he had as many as 4,500 patients on his list at his East London Surgery.

 

6. But above all Miss Booth relied on the very large number of personal testimonials and signed petitions, over 100 in all, including letters from six doctors in his area, and two local MPs.  Miss Booth acknowledged that it is duty of the General Medical Council to maintain public trust and confidence in the medical profession.  But she argued that Dr. Singh clearly retains the confidence of that section of the public most directly affected, namely, his patients.  To suspend him at this stage would therefore serve no useful purpose.  The only effect of suspension would be to punish him again for that for which he has already been punished in full.  The direction was therefore wrong in principle.

 

 

7. Their Lordships are grateful for Miss Booth's submissions, but they are not persuaded.  This was a case in which the Committee was entitled to take the view that the policy of preserving public trust in the profession prevailed over the strong personal mitigation which Dr. Singh was able to put forward.  The members of the Committee are in the best position to judge the relationship between patient and doctor.  They had Dr. Singh's testimonials before them, and doubtless took them into account.  But they will also have had in mind that this was not an isolated offence of dishonesty.  It continued over many years.  They were entitled to conclude, as Miss Foster said, that there is no room for dishonest doctors.  Their Lordships are unable to disturb the Committee's direction.  They will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed.  The appellant must pay the respondent's costs before their Lordships' Board.

 

© CROWN COPYRIGHT as at the date of judgment.