S29 our process
We review this information to identify whether the panel decision is wrong or unjust because of a serious or other procedural irregularity, and if so, whether the decision may be insufficient to protect the public.
If we identify that the panel decision may be insufficient, we can hold a case meeting where our Decision-Makers will decide whether to refer the case to Court.
We will instruct a lawyer (either a solicitor or barrister) to advise the Decision-Makers, but the decision to refer to Court will be made by the Decision-Makers only.
We will only refer panel decisions to Court if there is no other effective way of protecting the public.
Where we have identified concerns with a panel decision but have decided not to refer it to Court, we will share our concerns and any learning with the regulators.
We also have the power to join an appeal brought by the General Medical Council.
Protecting the public
When we review a panel decision, we can't just disagree. In considering whether the panel decision is sufficient for public protection we must carefully consider the following three questions:
- Will it protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the public?
- Will it maintain public confidence in the profession concerned?
- Will it maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession?
As part of our consideration of these questions, we need to consider whether the panel’s decision is materially wrong or unjust because of a serious of other procedural irregularity.
Court powers
The Courts have strict rules about when they'll overturn a regulator's decision, which we must follow. They'll usually only interfere with a decision of a regulator’s independent panel if:
- the decision was wrong
- there was a procedural impropriety
- the decision was irrational i.e. no reasonable panel would have made that decision.
There has been a failure to give adequate reasons and we cannot determine whether the decision is sufficient for the protection of the public.
This means it’s difficult for us to appeal a case successfully unless at least one of these elements is present.
The difference we make
Our process ensures that regulators make good decisions to keep the public safe and has helped to drive up standards in decision-making. Our appeals have also created a body of case law that has helped to clarify the purpose of the fitness to practise process.