[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions >> Graf v. The General Medical Council (Medical Act 1983) [1999] UKPC 5 (10th February, 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1999/5.html Cite as: [1999] UKPC 5

[New search] [Help]

Graf v. The General Medical Council (Medical Act 1983) [1999] UKPC 5 (10th February, 1999)

Privy Council Appeal No. 50 of 1998

Dr. Roland Graf Appellant

v.

The General Medical Council Respondent

FROM

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

Delivered the 10th February 1999

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

Lord Steyn

[Delivered by Lord Clyde]

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

1. This is an appeal by Dr. Roland Graf against a determination given by the Health Committee of the General Medical Council on 26th June 1998. Some two years before, at a hearing on 24th June 1996 the Committee had judged that his fitness to practise was seriously impaired by reason of his mental condition and directed a suspension of his registration for a period of twelve months. At the next hearing on 25th June 1997 the Committee again judged his fitness to practise to be seriously impaired and directed that his registration be suspended for a further twelve months. At the most recent hearing on 26th June 1998 the Chairman announced the decision of the Committee in the following terms:-

"Dr Graf, the Committee have carefully considered all the information presented to them and your remarks to them today. They continue to be seriously concerned about your mental condition. They have also noted your failure to undergo medical examination at the request of the screener for health on behalf of the Committee.

In the light of the evidence before them and your failure to undergo examination, the Committee have again judged your fitness to practise to be seriously impaired by reason of a paranoid personality disorder.

They can see no evidence that your condition and fitness to practise have improved over the last year. The Committee are in no doubt that your condition would seriously affect your ability to make sound professional judgments if you were to be permitted to resume professional practice. In the light of their concerns, the Committee have now directed that your registration should be suspended indefinitely."

2. Dr. Graf appealed unsuccessfully to Her Majesty in Council against the decision of 25th June 1997. He now appeals against the decision of 26th June 1998. Under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 an appeal is open to him but by virtue of section 40(5) it is limited to points of law. No criticism was made of the form of the decision which was pronounced and their Lordships observe in passing that it seems perfectly adequate as a statement of the reasons for the decision in the circumstances of the present case.

3. Dr. Graf appeared in person before their Lordships. Much of the burden of his complaint covered matters which he had explored before their Lordships in his earlier appeal including his general grievances against the attitude and behaviour of the General Medical Council and the procedure of the Health Committee. More particularly he directed an attack at the events and correspondence which took place between 1981 and 1983 at the early stages of his dealings with the Council when he initially sought an exemption from the payment of the annual registration fee. In so far as his attack on the procedure was based upon the Rules of the Health Committee they appeared to be misplaced since the Rules on which he founded (the General Medical Council Health Committee (Procedure) Rules Order of Council 1987-97) were not then in force. But beyond that their Lordships were not persuaded that these criticisms raised any point of law relevant to the decision now under appeal.

4. In relation to the more recent proceedings Dr. Graf referred to the correspondence which led up to the matter eventually coming before the Committee and in particular he focused upon a letter of 11th September 1995 which he saw as an important stage of the whole of the recent processes. This letter he argued was prejudicial, misleading and incorrect. His complaint appeared to be that he had been concerned that the facts in that regard should first be clarified and established and that the Committee should not proceed to consider the substance of the allegations against him until the history, and in particular the facts narrated in the letter, had been corrected. But their Lordships have not been persuaded that there are any valid grounds for holding that there was any breach of the statutory procedure at the stage which matters had reached at the hearing in June 1998 nor that there is good ground for appeal in this complaint. The critical issue then before the Committee was his current mental condition; that was the issue to which the Committee applied their minds and they were right to do so.

5. Dr. Graf again raised a complaint which he had raised before their Lordships earlier about the terminology and the diagnosis of the mental condition which the Committee found established. Their Lordships are satisfied that the information which he had was sufficient to deal with the allegation which was made and that there is no valid complaint in that regard.

6. Their Lordships have studied the voluminous papers presented to them and the transcript of the proceedings before the Committee. They can find no grounds for challenging the procedure followed by the Committee nor for questioning the sufficiency of the material which entitled the Committee to arrive at their determinations both on the matter of fitness and the matter of the suspension.

7. Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed.