P L D 1952 Privy Council 191 (PLP)
ARTHUR JAMES DALY‑Appellant Versus THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1952 Privy Council 191 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | ARTHUR JAMES DALY‑Appellant Versus THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | General Medical Council |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1952 Privy Council 191 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: General Medical Council as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1952 Privy Council 191 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1952 Privy Council 191 (PLP) (ARTHUR JAMES DALY‑Appellant Versus THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gerald Howard Q. C. M. P. and John MacGregor, for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 24th July 1952.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Discretion of in considering evidence in enquiry against doctor‑Extent. Appellant in person. Solicitors in person. Solicitors : Waterhouse & Co.
Judgment & Decree
LORD PORTER.‑In this case two problem have been raised ; the first is as to the action of the Legal Assessor, and the second is as to the discretion of the Medical Council. So far as the Assessor is concern, their Lordships have had called to their attention a number of Rules giving him wide powers, and they must assume that in this particular case, considering the evidence as presented, the Legal Assessor had received the leave of the Chairman to put the questions which he did, in which case they were entirely in order. If questions were put against the wish of the Chairman, they would, of course, be out of order, but that was not the case. Therefore there is no irregularity which could make a difference to the decision of the case for this reason. It is for the Medical Council, when they are considering what action they should take and whether the conduct amounts to infamous conduct, to receive not only the evidence in the particular case but evidence as to the previous position of the doctor concerned : they are entitled to, and must, take into consideration this additional evidence when they are making up their minds as to whether, in the first place, they should find the doctor guilty of infamous conduct, and in the second place as to what action they should take upon that conduct. Therefore, in the particular case, they were entitled, not only to hear evidence of the surrounding circumstances but evidence also of the previous complaints and findings with regard to the doctor in question. It is not, in their Lordships' view true to say that in a medical case you must only look at evidence of similar offences. How much those other matters, provided they are matters relevant to an appellant's behaviour as a doctor, may affect the mind of the Council is a matter for them and for their discretion. That being so, in this case their Lordships cannot say that the Council have in any way acted improperly or without evidence, or have not had ample ground upon which to exercise their discretion. In these circumstances, their Lord ships must humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal be dismissed. There will be no Order as to costs. The Order will take effect from the time when Her Majesty approves the advice tendered to Her. A. H. Appeal dismissed.