| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 156 1957 SLD 156 = 1957 PLD 20 |
Privy Council
Privy Council Appeal No. 21 of 1955, decided on 24th October 1955, from the Medical Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council.
Present : Lords Viscount Simonds, Keith of Avonholm and Somervell of Harrow
Pheneas Quass Q. C. and Y. G. Kellock for Appellant. T. G. S. Hobson for
Respondent.
Privy Council Appeal No. 21 of 1955, decided on 24th October 1955, from the Medical Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council.
Present : Lords Viscount Simonds, Keith of Avonholm and Somervell of Harrow
Pheneas Quass Q. C. and Y. G. Kellock for Appellant. T. G. S. Hobson for
Respondent.
ROBERT TAYLOR NOEL SIMPSON-Appellant
VERSUS
THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL---Respondent
Law:
Section:
P L D 1957 Privy Council 20 General Medical Council--------Action against medical practi tioner for " infamous conduct "-Appeal to Privy Council " Infamous conduct ", definition of-Plea of defect of reason in mitigation of guilt-Whether admissible. The name of the appellant, a medical practitioner, was erased from the medical register by the decision of the Medical Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council, the appellant having been found guilty of " infamous conduct " in a professional respect. At the hearing of appeal before the Privy Council, it was said by the appellant's counsel that the appellant, although he was not within the MecNaughton Rules, (i.e., the plea of insanity was not open to him) he was suffering from a defect of reason of a schizoid nature which made him think that the action which he took was in fact medical treatment in the bona fide interest of his patients. Evidence of this character had been given on his behalf and it was not possible to reject that view altogether. Held, that " infamous conduct " is conduct which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful and dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency." Allinson's case (1894) 1 Q B 750 ref. Further, that even if it is assumed that the appellant, because of his mental condition, thought that the acts, of which he was found guilty, would be beneficial to his patients, such evidence as the Committee bad before them as to the appellant's mental condition, and the nature of his offences, showed that the Committee had come to a right conclusion. It was not necessary for their Lordships to determine whether there may be circumstances in which weight should be given to the consideration that standard of conduct, infamous, disgraceful or dishonourable, should be judged by the mental condition of the practitioner. The Medical Acts are designed at the same time to protect the public and to maintain the high professional and ethical standard of an honourable calling. If a practitioner, having committed the grave offences…