Court rules on professional standards authority appeal

Introduction

The High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Collins Rice, has ruled in favour of the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) in a case concerning the continuation of conditions of practice for a healthcare professional, Mr Ihab Sharf. The decision overturned a previous ruling by a disciplinary committee that allowed Mr Sharf to return to practice unconditionally after a conditions of practice order expired.

Background

Mr Sharf, an operating-department practitioner, was subject to professional disciplinary proceedings for conduct issues between November 2017 and February 2018. A disciplinary committee found his fitness to practise impaired due to misconduct and imposed an 18-month Conditions of Practice (CoP) Order in September 2021. This order was reviewed and extended multiple times, with the last extension occurring in December 2023.

The Dispute

The crux of the case was whether the CoP Order imposed on 1st December 2023 had expired when reviewed by a committee on 3rd April 2024. The committee concluded it had no jurisdiction to review the order as it believed it had expired, allowing Mr Sharf to practise without conditions. The PSA challenged this decision, arguing it was legally incorrect and insufficient for public protection.

Legal Framework

The PSA's challenge was based on section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, which allows the PSA to refer decisions to the High Court if they are deemed insufficient for public protection. The High Court treated the PSA's reference as an appeal, with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and Mr Sharf as respondents.

High Court Ruling

Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled that the committee's decision was wrong in law. The court found that the order made on 1st December 2023 was still extant on 3rd April 2024, as the law provided for seamless consecutiveness of such orders. The committee was therefore obliged to conduct a review, which it failed to do, resulting in a lapse of the conditions of practice meant to protect the public.

Implications

The ruling highlighted the importance of clarity and adherence to statutory provisions in regulatory proceedings. The court emphasised that the law provides a clear framework for the duration and review of conditions of practice orders, which must be followed to ensure public protection.

Next Steps

The High Court quashed the committee's decision and substituted it with a ruling that there was an extant order at the time, requiring a review. The court invited the parties to propose a way forward, potentially involving a new review by a differently-constituted committee to assess the necessity of reinstating conditions on Mr Sharf's practice.

Conclusion

This case underscores the regulatory bodies' responsibility to maintain public trust by ensuring healthcare professionals adhere to conditions of practice. The High Court's decision serves as a reminder of the legal obligations in safeguarding public health and maintaining professional standards.

Learn More

For more information on healthcare professional regulation, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.