Professional Discipline & Regulatory E-bulletin April 2010

Welcome to the Spring 2010 edition of our Professional Discipline & Regulatory E-bulletin which looks at recent decisions of the courts and rounds up some of the news from the regulatory bodies.

Anderson Strathern is the only wholly Scottish based firm to have a ranking in the category of 'Professional Discipline - Best of the UK' in the Chambers legal directory. Our hugely experienced team covers medicine, nursing, dentistry, social care, law, accountancy, public services, parliamentary, information, financial services, crime and sport. We work collaboratively with our English counterpart firms in this area and our client base includes UK–wide as well as Scotland-only professional and regulatory bodies.

Standard of proof S-B Children [2009] UKSC The change from the criminal to the civil standard of proof for bodies such as the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council led to debate among practitioners as to just how the civil standard of the balance of probabilities was to be applied, particularly in cases where the charges were very serious. One interpretation which had grown up from Re H [1996] AC 563 was that there was a 'heightened' standard of proof in such situations. Another view was that where an event was improbable, then the more cogent was the evidence required in order to prove it. The debate was largely brought to an end with the two decisions of the House of Lords, Re B [2009] AC 11 and Re H [2009] EWCA Civ 1048. In Re B it was said there was no necessary connection between seriousness and inherent probability. It was emphasised by Lady Hale that: "...the simple balance of probabilities test should be applied." Any remaining issues have been put beyond doubt in the seven judge Supreme Court decision in the case of S-B Children [2009] UKSC 17 where Lady Hale at para. 13 said that the nostrum "the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence needed to prove it" was not only rejected but was a misinterpretation of what Lord Nicholls had said in the original Re H case. Another important aspect of the S-B Children case was the discussion, also present in each of the cases mentioned here, of how to apply the test for future harm when a finding of past harm has been made. For the full judgement please click here

Sanction Saunders v The Hearing Aid Council [2010] EWHC 629 (Admin) In this appeal to the High Court the appellant contended that the sanction of erasure and the costs penalty of £30,000 was...