Protecting the public

Consideration of whether a decision is sufficient for the protection of the public involves consideration of whether it is sufficient to protect the health, safety and well-being of the public, whether it is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession concerned, and whether it is sufficient to maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession.

In considering whether a decision is insufficient for the protection of the public, we must identify whether the panel’s decision is materially wrong or unjust because of a serious of other procedural irregularity. 

We cannot simply disagree with a panel. Over the years, the courts have given guidance on when they will exercise their powers and we must take their decisions into account. The courts have made it clear that they will only interfere with a decision of a regulator’s independent panel if it is wrong in law or that there has been a procedural flaw, and the decision is one that no reasonable panel (in exercise of its duties and following the relevant guidance) could have made. This sets an extremely high bar for us to successfully appeal a case.