| 释义 |
professional misconduct
Behaviour by a professional person that is regarded as “improper, unreasonable or negligent” (Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] EWCA Civ 40) when assessed in accordance with that profession’s usual standards of practice or codes of conduct. The judiciary has proved reluctant to adopt a simple definition of “misconduct” owing to the wide variety of behaviour that may lead to sanction in different professions. Nonetheless, a small number of cases continue to dominate discussion of the level of misbehaviour that must be established, notably Doughty v General Dental Council [1987] UKPC 25, Roylance v General Medical Council (No. 2) [1999] UKPC 16, and Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1390. A “high threshold” must be met in order for a professional registrant’s behaviour to be classified as professional misconduct (Bar Standards Board v Howd [2017] EWHC 2010 (Admin)). The alleged act or omission must be a serious impairment or breach of the profession’s expected standards and not one that may be regarded as trivial or excusable (Khan v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2184 (Admin)). The use of language such as “infamous”, “disgraceful”, or “reprehensible” to describe grave acts of misconduct has increasingly fallen out of favour. Rather, the courts tend to favour words such as “serious” (Doughty and Roylance, as cited above), “unacceptable” (Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147), or “reckless” (Brett v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 2974 (Admin); Carrimjee v Financial Conduct Authority [2015] UKUT 0079 (TCC)) to connote conduct that has sufficiently fallen below a standard expected by the profession to be regarded as sanctionable (Calhaem v General Medical Council [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin); Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin); Sharp v The Law Society of Scotland [1984] SC 129). |