Andrew Yue Shu Hoi v. The Medical Council of Hong Kong
Read the full judgment text of CACV 68/1979 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Medical Council, In August last year the appellant, a registered doctor, was charged before the Council with two disciplinary offences. The first charge is that on the 10th July, 1978 he supplied 50 Mandrax tablets, each containing a drug of dependence, otherwise than in the course of bona fide treatment to one Chan She-ching alias Chan Oi-lin. The second charge is of the same nature except that the person to whom he was alleged to have supplied the 5
|
CACV000068/1979
Coram: Li, J.A., O'Connor and Power, JJ. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Li, J.A.: 1. This is an appeal against an order of the Medical Council, In August last year the appellant, a registered doctor, was charged before the Council with two disciplinary offences. The first charge is that on the 10th July, 1978 he supplied 50 Mandrax tablets, each containing a drug of dependence, otherwise than in the course of bona fide treatment to one Chan She-ching alias Chan Oi-lin. The second charge is of the same nature except that the person to whom he was alleged to have supplied the 50 Mandrax tablets was Cheung Kam-heung on the 19th July, 1978. On each occasion the person involved was a woman police constable. Each said that she went to the doctor's consulting room, asked for Mandrax and 50 Mandrax tablets were prescribed and supplied by the appellant without medical examination. Constable Chan could not remember whether the appellant asked whether she could not sleep or whether she told that to appellant. Constable Cheung said that she did not tell the doctor that she could not sleep nor did he ask her. The charges were heard before the Council. The appellant gave evidence on oath. His own evidence was that he took the blood pressure and pulse rate of the women and carried out simple medical examinations before he prescribed the drugs on each occasion. The Council found that the first charge not proved but the second charge proved. 2. The Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that since the circumstances in both cases are so similar the conclusion is inconsistent. It gives a person a sense of unease. Alternatively, the Council never gave any reason why they had come to these conclusions. However, there is nothing to prevent the Council rejecting the evidence of one witness but accept the evidence of another. These are two different charges on different occasions. We do not see any inconsistency in this matter. The appellant was given a fair and full hearing. The Council has come to a certain conclusion and we do not feel that we are justified in interfering with the verdict or the conclusion of the Council. Accordingly the appeal against the order itself is dismissed. We are now prepared to hear counsel as far as the question of penalty is concerned. Sentence 3. The Order of the Council is that the name of the appellant be removed from the Register of Practitioners for a period of 6 months. The charge which the Council found proved is a serious one. The substance is that the appellant, abusing his privilege as a registered doctor, committed an act amounting to trafficking in drugs. Despite counsel's plea for leniency we see no ground for interfering with the penalty imposed by the Medical Council. Accordingly the appeal against that part of the Council's Order of penalty is also dismissed. Representation: F.A.L. Eddis, (K.M. Lai & Li) for appellant M. Sinclair (Legal Department) for respondent |