The Gazette 1961 - 64

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 v. 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 98

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 to 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