Another interesting pre-Xmas judgment from the Administrative Court in the form of Wray v General Osteopathic Council [2020] EWHC 3409 (QB).

This recent decision (15 December) highlights the risks to regulators in a case where the underlying conduct has previously resulted in criminal proceedings and a conditional discharge. (As is well known, such matters cannot be treated as a conviction).

Here, the difficulties were exacerbated by the fact that there had been no criminal trial previously and no facts established. The appellant had received a conditional discharge for having an offensive weapon in his possession in a public place.

There was only a ‘plea and conviction’ which the appellant sought to go behind. As a result of this, the Committee ‘responded by treating Mr Wray’s case in hybrid fashion’ (paragraph 36).

Rice J. concluded that the conduct of the hearing was ‘seriously irregular’. In setting aside the decision, the Court concluded that whilst “Mr Wray’s conduct may be thought ill-judged and regrettable in a professional…'[d]eplorable’ would seem an unjustifiably exaggerated response in all the circumstances”.

Well worth a read! https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/3409.html