Read the full judgment text of CACV 000250/2004 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 March 2006 before Cheung JA, Yuen JA and Lam J.
Medical discipline – appeal from Medical Council of Hong Kong – removal from General Register for failure to keep proper records of dangerous drugs – 47 convictions under Regulations 5(1)(a) and 5(7) of the Dangerous Drugs Regulations (Cap. 134) – nine types of dangerous drugs including sleeping pills, slimming pills and anti-anxiety pills – discrepancy of about 49,000 tablets across two clinics – appellant's psychiatric specialist practice – whether Court of Appeal should revise its appellate approach in light of Ghosh and Preiss – whether Libman v General Medical Council [1972] AC 217 approach remains definitive after human rights legislation – Privy Council decisions persuasive after 1997 – Article 6(1) of European Convention mirroring Article 10 of Hong Kong Bill of Rights and Article 14(1) of ICCPR – wide appellate jurisdiction under section 26 of the Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap. 161) – whether 9-month removal excessive or disproportionate – Medical Council as best qualified tribunal on professional discipline – appropriate measure of respect to professional body's judgment on penalties – relevant factors include reason for non-compliance, quantity of drugs, nature of drugs, and evidence of improper disposal – lack of consistent sentencing guidelines by Medical Council highlighted – disciplinary body's power must be exercised with circumspection – Cheung JA would substitute 6 months as unduly harsh given comparable cases – majority (Yuen JA and Lam J) held 9-month removal within appropriate range and not so excessive as to warrant intervention – appeal dismissed with costs to respondent.
Legal issues: Revision of appellate approach from Medical Council in light of Ghosh and Preiss · Whether the 9-month removal was excessive or disproportionate
Outcome: Appeal dismissed by majority (Cheung JA dissenting). The 9-month removal from the General Register imposed by the Medical Council is affirmed.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case