Welcome to Legal Jukebox Friday
Legal Jukebox Friday is your weekly dose of lively discussions where we randomly select a legal case to explore and why it may assist those practising in regulatory law, including solicitors, adjudicators, and healthcare professionals. While some of these cases may be considered classics, they remain relevant and are worth revisiting.
So, grab your drink, kick back, and join us for Legal Jukebox Friday—where every case has its own beat! We are looking at interim orders and the impact on a final sanction.
Fitness to practise: the sanction balancing act
When fairness meets regulation
Healthcare professionals facing fitness to practise proceedings know the stakes. Careers hang in the balance. Reputations teeter on the edge. But what happens when an interim order drags on for months—or even years—before a final decision? Should that time in limbo count towards the final sanction? Spoiler alert: fairness says yes, but the law? It’s complicated.
Legal precedents shaping the landscape
For years, regulators sidestepped interim orders when dishing out sanctions. A registrant stuck under restrictive conditions for a year could receive the same punishment as one who had never faced an interim order at all. The cases of Ujam v GMC [2012] and Abdul-Razzak v GPhC [2016] reinforced this rigid approach, treating interim orders as mere background noise.
Then came Kamberova v NMC [2016]. The verdict? Common fairness dictates that fitness to practise panels must factor in the real-world impact of interim orders. If a healthcare professional has already endured a lengthy suspension, ignoring that when deciding a final sanction isn’t just unfair—it’s disproportionate.
Sanctions: a question of proportionality
The Akhtar v GDC [2017] ruling further refined the position. A dentist, already suspended for six months pre-hearing, argued that this should be factored into his final suspension period. The court upheld the panel’s decision—but not before confirming a key principle: interim orders matter, but it’s up to the panel to weigh their impact.
The reality for registrants
For cases involving clinical competence or public safety, panels are unlikely to let an interim order tip the scales. Protecting patients will always take precedence. But where sanctions revolve around public confidence or professional conduct, expect arguments around proportionality to carry more weight—especially when investigations drag on for years.
Need a specialist healthcare lawyer?
If you’re facing a fitness to practise investigation, you need more than just legal representation. You need a strategy. The right healthcare lawyer won’t just fight your case—they’ll make sure fairness isn’t an afterthought. Because when your career is on the line, every argument matters. Get in touch today for a free, no-obligation consultation.