Most regulatory bodies have provisions in their rules for the interim suspension of registrants during the course of investigation (a) for the protection of the public, (b) where it is otherwise in the interests of the public or (c) is in the registrant’s own interests.

Suspension from a registrant’s profession pending determination of an investigation or proceedings is a draconian step which in itself will have serious consequences for a professional person.

An Interim Orders Panel convened to determine the professional body’s application will not make findings of facts, but must nevertheless ask itself if there is any credible evidence to support the allegation or whether the allegation comes from a credible source.  Furthermore, if the allegation were to be proved at a subsequent Conduct Hearing, would that Committee be likely at least to impose a period of suspension upon the registrant.  If not, an interim suspension order would not be appropriate.  Next, are there immediate public protection issues which require the registrant to be suspended?  If all those matters are satisfied, the Committee will need to consider if the order would be proportionate and, if there has been a delay since the alleged conduct took place, how the registrant has behaved in the meantime. 

In Shiekh v General Dental Council [2007] EWHC 2972 (Admin) a dentist changed his plea to guilty during the course of a Crown Court trial in respect of fraudulent travel claims by his associates.  The trial judge said that there was sustained dishonesty and a conspiracy to defraud, but he commented that it was unlikely that the dentist would indulge in making dishonest claims in the future.  He imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment which was suspended for 18 months.

After that conviction the General Dental Council  commenced regulatory proceedings  and its Interim Orders Panel suspended the dentist for 18 months.  It is important to note in this case that it was at all times accepted that Mr Shiekh posed no direct risk to the safety of the public.  The panel concerned itself only with the reputation of, and public confidence in the profession.   The dentist had also made reparation in financial terms to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of pounds, had secured a multi-million pound contract from the relevant local Trust, and the conduct complained of was over 8 years old.

Quashing the order for suspension, Davis J said:  The difficulty I have in this particular case is trying to get a purchase on why it was that the Panel thought that interim suspension was needed.  This was not a case of ongoing or future risk or anything like that.  He added that it did not seem to him that any principled decision had been given by the panel.

The more recent case of Sosanya v The General Medical Council  [2009] EWHC 2814 (Admin) concerned a doctor.  Dr Sosanya’s husband was an accountant charged with an advanced fees fraud to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.   Dr Sosanya was later charged with money laundering.  The details of the offences, which she denied, were very sparsely set out.  The charges had nothing to do with her abilities as a doctor.  There was no suggestion that if she were to continue in practice she would be given access to moneys or might then become tempted into activities of the kind with which she was charged.

The Panel made an interim order of suspension against the doctor but did not identify in their reasoning any risk posed.  Again, the judge did not think that an interims suspension order was necessary or proportionate.

These cases give clear guidelines to panels.  It has to be remembered that there will be different risks in different professions.  For example, a doctor or dentist faced with serious allegations of dishonesty may not present the same risk to the public as a social worker.  A social worker faced with the same allegation may be looking after a vulnerable service user and have access to that person’s private possessions and bank accounts.  They are matters which panels must weigh carefully, and if they do decide to suspend must identify clearly what risks they are aiming to protect the public from and act proportionately in all the circumstances.