Human rights: Article 6 rights not engaged at doctor's disciplinary hearing
This report relates to 1 case(s)
-
expand
R (on the application of Puri) v Bradford Teaching Hospital NHS Trust [2011] IRLR 582 HC (1 other report)
The High Court in this case distinguished the circumstances from those in R (on the application of G) v Governors of X School and Y City Council [2010] IRLR 222 CA, in which the Court of Appeal held that a teacher had the right to be accompanied by a lawyer. In this case, the European Convention on Human Rights was not engaged in internal disciplinary proceedings where the employee was not, as a result, deprived of the right to practise his profession. The Supreme Court has in any event overturned its decision on legal representation at disciplinary hearings in R (on the application of G) v Governors of X School and Y City Council [2011] IRLR 756 SC.
In R (on the application of Puri) v Bradford Teaching Hospital NHS Trust [2011] IRLR 582 HC, the High Court held that rights under art.6 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not engaged in respect of the composition of disciplinary and appeal panels determining disciplinary action against a doctor. In the circumstances of the case, the hearings were not determining the doctor's ability to practise his profession, but merely his ability to remain in a particular post.
