Read the full judgment text of FACV 000003/2000 on BabelCite. This FACV judgment was delivered on 1 June 2000 before Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ.
Statutory interpretation – Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap. 161) – ss 21(1) and 25(3) – purposive construction – Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) s.19 – whether registered medical practitioner removed from the General Register for a specified period under s.21(1)(ii) is automatically entitled to restoration upon expiry of the period, or is covered by the application procedure in s.25(3) – registered medical practitioner convicted of conspiracy to defraud in 1990 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment – Council ordered removal from the Register for three years – practitioner subsequently convicted in 1995 of 19 charges of failing to keep proper records of dangerous drugs contrary to regulation 5(1) read with regulation 5(7) of the Dangerous Drugs Regulations (Cap. 134) – after expiry of three-year removal period, practitioner applied for restoration under s.25(3) and Council refused relying on the 1995 convictions – judicial review application – whether s.25(3) is engaged – five interpretative considerations: striking balance between protection of public and avoidance of restraint on qualified professionals; interpretation in context of other statutes in pari materia including Dentists Registration Ordinance (Cap. 156) and Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159); avoiding circularity; according meaning and substance to each provision including 1996 safeguards added to s.25(3); reluctance to find a radical change by a side-wind through mere change of terminology in 1996 amendments from 'removed or erased' to 'removed' – construction that s.25(3) applies to all removed practitioners, including those removed for specified periods under s.21(1)(ii) – Court of Appeal decision (Nazareth VP and Hartmann J; Burrell J dissenting) reversed – appeal allowed with costs – application for judicial review dismissed – order nisi for costs in this Court and lower courts.
Legal issues: Applicability of s.25(3) Medical Registration Ordinance to specified-period removals under s.21(1)(ii)
Outcome: Appeal allowed; Dr Chow's application for judicial review dismissed.
Cited by 1 case