a certificate of the Home Secretary claiming
privilege for the police minute covering the trans
fer. The matter on which application was refused
by the High Court on appeal from the Master, was
then appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed
the appeal. Lord Denning stated that it seemed
that a declaration might serve some useful purposes
and should not be rejected out of hand.
The
Minister's certificate had used words which Lord
Simon had used in a previous case but which he
would not have wished to be used as if they were
words of an Act of Parliament. His Lordship did
not think that the certificate was sufficient to claim
protection and he would not on that ground strike
out the cause of action in libel; he would dismiss
the appeal. Harman and Salmon, L. JJ., delivered
concurring judgments. (1964) i. All Eng. R. 717.
The case gave rise to a question by Mr. Dingle
Foot in the Commons on 2 5th February, 1964.
Disciplinary jurisdiction—Procedural error
The Court of Appeal (Willmer, Danckwerts,
Diplock, L. JJ.), dismissed the application of Ivan
Weisz for an order of certiorari to bring up and
quash a determination of the Disciplinary Committee
of the General Medical Council whereby his name
was erased from the General Medical Register. The
complaint against Dr. Weisz was originally prepared
in 1961 by a Dr. Castillo. Dr. Castillo died on May 8
but his widow and personal representatives con
tinued to press the complaint. On the case being
called
before
the Disciplinary Committee on
February 27, 1962, Mr. Boydell, then instructed
by solicitors for the personal representatives of
Dr. Castillo, drew the attention of the committee
to rule 18 of the General Medical Council Disci
plinary Committee (Procedure) Rules, 1958, which
provided :
"In cases relating to conduct where
the practitioner appears the following order of
proceedings shall be observed. .
.
.
(a)
If a complainant appears, he shall open the
case
against
the practitioner.
Subject
to
any
directions given by the President or the Com
mittee, if no complainant appears the solicitor shall
present the facts on which the complaint or informa
tion is based." Mr. Boydell pointed out that the
complainant being dead, it could not be suggested
that the complainant appear and he suggested
the proper procedure was for him to be instructed
by the Solicitor to the General Medical Council
rather than the complainant's solicitors.
The legal assessor to the Disciplinary Committee
thought that it was unnecessary and advised that
on the directions of the committee Mr. Boydell
should present the case on behalf of the personal
representative. Counsel
then appearing for Dr.
Weisz not only acquiesced in that course but ex
pressed agreement with the ruling of the legal
assessor. The committee decided that some of the
charges were not made out but held that other
charges were proved and instructed that Dr. Weisz's
name be erased from the register.
Subsequent appeal to the judicial committee of
the privy council failed and Dr. Weisz was erased
from the register on 29th January, 1963. In con
sequence of something said during the hearing
before the judicial committee Dr. Weisz conceived
the idea that because of certain irregularities he
might be entitled to an order of certiorari. The
present application for certiorari before the Court
of Appeal was that the committee lacked juris
diction to proceed with the inquiry because Mr.
Boydell was instructed formally by the widow and
personal representatives of Dr. Castillo and not by
the solicitor.
The divisional court had pointed out that error
could not make any difference to the conduct of the
case or the result and was simply a technical error in
procedure.
The present case did not in the court's view fall
into the category of lack of jurisdiction by the
disciplinary committee but into the category of error
of procedure.
In the present case
the irregu
larity was one of procedure by an inferior tribunal
of acting within its " jurisdiction" in the strict
sense, of primary consideration was whether the
party aggrieved had been prejudiced by the irregu
larity. In the present case, the procedure was in no
way contrary to natural justice and Dr. Weisz was
not in the least prejudiced by it.
Appeal dismissed.
The recent case of Sivarajah
v.
General Medical
Council was an appeal from the determination of the
Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical
Council dealing with defects in the conduct of the
enquiry. A Mrs. F. made a complaint against the
appellant, a medical practitioner, and in support
thereof made a statutory declaration as required
by the acts governing the medical profession in
England, a copy of which was duly sent to the
appellant. The charge against the appellant was
one of professional misconduct. During the period
in which the misconduct was alleged
to have
occurred the appellant stood in professional relation
ship with Mrs. F. At the hearing before the Disci
plinary Committee of the General Medical Council
(at which the appellant did not appear) a document
was produced purporting to be a letter from the
appellant to the Committee stating that he wished
the hearing to take place in his absence; to that was
98