Read the full judgment text of CACV 000010/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 May 1996 before Godfrey JA, Mayo JA, Ching JA.
Medical discipline – Dangerous drugs – Failure to keep proper records – Medical Registration Ordinance, Cap 161, s.21 – Regulation 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Regulations, Cap 134 – Appeal against sentence of three months' removal from the medical register imposed by the Medical Council – Doctor convicted in North Kowloon Magistrate's Court of failing to keep proper records of dangerous drugs contrary to regulation 5(1) and (7) of the Dangerous Drugs Regulations, Cap 134 – Records omitted addresses of suppliers, addresses of patients, and remaining balance of dangerous drugs – Magistrate fined the doctor $10,000 – Maximum penalty a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for three years – Doctor had kept some records and the drugs could be accounted for and had not reached unauthorised persons – Personal mitigating circumstances including medical problems necessitating absence from practice – Whether failure to keep proper records constitutes 'dishonourable conduct' or misconduct in a professional respect – Whether the Medical Council erred by treating non-compliance as dishonourable conduct when only charged under s.21(1)(a) for conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment – Whether court should interfere with Medical Council's penalty as unduly harsh – Held: doctor's appeal against penalty dismissed – Court of Appeal defers to Medical Council's expertise on matters of professional discipline and public interest – Per Mayo JA, interference with domestic tribunal's decision only justified if procedurally improper, based on legal misunderstanding, or plainly wrong – Per Godfrey JA, misgivings about dismissal given doctor was not charged with professional misconduct – Per Ching JA, necessary overlap between conviction-based and misconduct-based disciplinary proceedings under s.21(1) – Council's description of conduct as 'dishonourable' read as meaning doctor behaved in a way that brought dishonour to his profession rather than being a finding of disgraceful and shameful conduct – Peatfield v. General Medical Council [1986] 1 WLR 243 applied regarding deference to professional bodies on appropriate penalty – Distinction drawn from prior case of Dr Mao Chung Ting (Civil Appeal 182 of 1995) where court had suspended the Council's removal order – Comparative case analysis of prior three-month removal orders (Dr So Yiu Pu, Dr Chow Chor-kuen Peter, Dr Mao Chun-ting, and Ng Mei Sin v. Medical Council (1995) 1 HKC 242) not determinative – Court declined to usurp Council's function by substituting its own views – Order nisi that the Medical Council have their costs of the appeal.
Legal issues: Whether the Medical Council erred in finding the doctor guilty of 'dishonourable conduct' · Whether the public interest required suspension of the doctor given mitigating circumstances · Whether the penalty was unduly harsh and not justified by the evidence
Outcome: Appeal against the Medical Council's order of three months' removal from the medical register dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases