(4 min read)
The High Court has recently considered the principles which professional regulatory bodies must take into consideration when imposing sanctions. While the court acknowledged the importance of curial deference, in favour of professional regulatory bodies, they also noted the limits to such deference. The court considered the principle of proportionality in the imposition of sanctions and relevant mitigating factors together with the importance for regulatory bodies to give reasons for their decisions.
A recent High Court case has reaffirmed important principles that a professional regulatory body must take into consideration in imposing sanction on registrants. In William McCartney v. The Veterinary Council of Ireland ([2024] IEHC 411), the registrant, a veterinary practitioner appealed against a sanction imposed by the Veterinary Council of Ireland (VCI) following findings of misconduct. The allegations against the registrant included that he had performed surgery on a dog without obtaining the informed consent of the dog's owner. While the dog was initially referred for surgery on its right leg, McCartney decided to operate on the left leg after diagnosing bilateral cruciate disease in the left leg, but he did not inform the owner and seek the owner's consent to do so. His failure to do so, coupled with poor communication afterwards, led the VCI's Fitness to Practise Committee to find him guilty of professional misconduct. The Council of the VCI imposed a two-month suspension on his registration, and he appealed the imposition of sanction to the High Court.
The High Court (O'Higgins J) allowed the appeal in part, reducing the period of suspension to one month. In the course of the judgment, the Court referred to a number of relevant matters in the context of the imposition of sanction. The Court stated that whilst it was mindful of curial deference to the VCI as a specialist regulator, this deference was not absolute and the High Court maintains the authority to review and adjust sanctions, when necessary and appropriate to do so.
The Court focused on the principle of proportionality and noted that the sanction must reflect the seriousness of the proven misconduct while not exceeding what is necessary to protect the public, maintain trust in the profession, and uphold professional standards. While the VCI found the registrant’s failure to obtain informed consent to be a significant breach, the court pointed out that the misconduct, though serious, was not among the most severe examples of professional misconduct. They also recognised that the registrant’s decision to operate on the left leg was medically justified, and that no harm was caused to the animal.
The Court considered the mitigating factors present in the case and held that the VCI failed to fully consider same. This included that there was no harm to the dog as he required surgery on both legs, that the surgery performed was clinically justified, and that the registrant had an otherwise unblemished professional record. The Court emphasised that these factors should have been given greater weight by the VCI, particularly since there were no aggravating factors such as dishonesty or harm to the animal. The court concluded that the two-month suspension was excessive and unnecessarily punitive given the facts of the complaint coupled with the mitigating factors and imposed a suspension for a period of one month.
This decision provides helpful guidance as to how regulatory bodies should approach sanctions in cases of professional misconduct. The key points identified are:
- Consideration of Mitigating Factors: It is important to properly weigh mitigating factors, such as remorse, corrective actions, and the absence of harm.
- Proportionate Sanctions: Sanctions must be proportionate to the severity of the misconduct. While maintaining public confidence is essential, sanctions should not exceed what is necessary to achieve this goal.
- Reasons: Regulatory bodies must provide clear reasoning for their decisions, particularly when imposing more severe sanctions like suspensions. The court criticised the VCI for not fully explaining its decision to impose the sanction it decided to impose.
- Curial Deference: Whilst there is a degree of deference to the expertise of regulatory bodies by the courts, this deference has limits. Regulatory decisions, especially concerning sanctions, must be reasoned and fair, and they remain subject to appeal and judicial review.
This case serves as a timely reminder to regulatory bodies to ensure that sanctions are proportionate, well-reasoned, and take all relevant factors into account.
