The Gazette 1961

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

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

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