Information even unlawfully obtained is admissible to the GMC – Joanna Glynn QC

23 November 2014 by

785px-Doctors_stethoscope_1R (on the application of Nakash) v Metropolitan Police Service and General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 3810 (Admin) – read judgment

The High Court has ruled that although information obtained unlawfully by the police is admissible in regulatory proceedings (even if not in criminal proceedings), it  “carries little weight” in the assessment of competing interests required by Article 8(2). 

The General Medical Council [“GMC”] has wide powers under section 35A Medical Act 1983 to require disclosure of information which appears relevant to the discharge of the Council’s statutory functions in respect of a practitioner’s fitness to practise.

Where the police are in possession of confidential material that they are reasonably persuaded is of some relevance to an investigation being conducted by the GMC, a doctor’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR are not breached by the police disclosing that information, even where it was unlawfully obtained. However, the police must undertake the careful scrutiny and balancing exercise required by Article 8 before the decision as to disclosure is made.

Woolgar

This case provides a helpful reminder of the principles in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2000] 1 WLR 25, which remains the leading authority on the duties of the police regarding the disclosure of confidential material to a regulatory body. That case concerned the disclosure of police interviews to a nurse’s regulatory body, without her consent, and where there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The Court held:

  1. what is said in a police interview is undoubtedly confidential;
  2. it may nevertheless be disclosable to a regulator without the consent of the interviewee where it is justified by the public interest in the proper functioning of the regulator, or to put it in Convention terms, where the disclosure is necessary in the interests of public safety, or for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms or others;
  3. the police are, therefore, entitled to release the material if they are reasonably persuaded that it is of some relevance to the subject matter of the regulator’s inquiry;
  4. this is so, even if there is no request for disclosure from the regulatory body, but in every case the competing public interests must be considered before disclosure is made;
  5. confidentiality attaching to the material is maintained after disclosure, save that it might be used by the regulatory body for the purposes of its own inquiry;
  6. where it is decided to disclose, the police should, where practical, inform the person affected of what they propose to do in such time as to enable that person, if so advised, to seek assistance from the court.

The instant case raised similar issues to those in Woolgar, save for the additional fact that one of the two pieces of information under consideration had been obtained unlawfully and there were criticisms of the manner in which the police interview with Dr Nakash had been conducted.

Background facts

The doctor faced an allegation by a patient of sexual assault, in respect of which he was acquitted by a jury. He sought to challenge the disclosure by the police to the GMC of his private internet communications with a third party, in which he referred to his sexual arousal during a conversation with a different patient some three weeks before the incident giving rise to the prosecution; this communication had been obtained unlawfully and was inadmissible in the criminal proceedings. It was argued that disclosure to the regulator in the particular circumstances of this case would be wholly disproportionate and not justified under Article 8(2).

The disclosure of his police interview was also challenged on the ground of its limited probative value, and arguments in favour of disclosure were far outweighed by the circumstances in which it was conducted, including a deceitful suggestion by the police that the matter was not serious, the absence of advance disclosure and the effective denial of a solicitor.

The Court’s findings

Cox J found that the police had been in error in failing properly to undertake the balancing exercise of competing interests required by Article 8 and as contemplated by the Court of Appeal in Woolgar:

Since the primary decision as to disclosure will be made in these cases by the police, it is important that before the decision to disclose is made, there is a rational assessment of the relevant competing interests and that consideration is given in each case to the extent of the interference, and whether the disclosure sought is in accordance with the law and is a proportionate response to a legitimate aim, as required by Article 8(2). [para. 46]

In undertaking the balancing exercise afresh, the Court found that the fact that the unlawfully obtained internet correspondence carried little weight and did not outweigh the legitimate aim served by its disclosure under s.35A, namely to enable the GMC, in the exercise of its statutory functions, to protect public health and safety and to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

The inadmissibility of the internet communication in the criminal proceedings did not render it immune from disclosure under s.35A Medical Act 1983. As for relevance, where there might be different interpretations of the information, it is for the regulator to determine which is correct, and whether there are further lines of enquiry to be pursued, the scope of the GMC’s enquiry being broader than the criminal enquiry. In the circumstances the internet communication could not be said to be irrelevant to the GMC’s investigation (paras. 59-61). In considering the disclosure of the police interview, which had to be taken a whole, the Court took into account the criticisms of the interviewing process, along with the fact that the doctor had been cautioned and the interviews were accurately transcribed, and concluded that disclosure to the GMC was reasonable and justified.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

1 comment;


  1. Dan says:

    “One lawyer makes work for another.” Jeremy Bentham

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: