“25. In broad terms I accept the submissions of Miss Callaghan for the GMC, as to the proper approach for the court on an appeal under Section 40 of the Act, which were not disputed by Mr. Forde QC (with whom Mr De Bono appeared) for Dr Azzam. These principles are well established and appear most recently from GMC v Meadow[2007] QB 462 , Raschid & anor v GMC[2007] 1 WLR 1460 and Gupta v GMC[2007] EWHC 2918 (Admin) . The principles are: (1) The panel is concerned with the reputation and standing of the medical profession, rather than with the punishment of doctors; (2) The judgment of the panel deserves respect as the body best qualified to judge what the profession expects of its members in matters of practice and the measures necessary to maintain the standards and reputation of the profession; (3) The panel's judgment should be afforded particular respect concerning standards of professional practice and treatment; (4) The court's function is not limited to review of the panel decision but it will not interfere with a decision unless persuaded that it was wrong. The court will, therefore, exercise a secondary judgment as to the application of the principles to the facts of the case before it. 26. To this list one can also add that the Panel is entitled and bound to consider aspects of the public interest that arise in any case: see e.g. R (Harry) v GMC[2006] EWHC 2050 (Admin) .”
“2. This appeal is by way of rehearing: see 52PD 116 (2). I must allow the appeal if persuaded that the decision of the panel was wrong:CPR 52.22 (3)(a) and GMC v Meadow[2006] EWCA Civ 1390 paragraphs 125. Because its findings involve judgments about the reliability and truthfulness of witnesses who gave oral evidence in front of it, I must accept its findings of fact unless material errors are clearly demonstrated; and because in determining sanctions, once misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise were found, the Panel is exercising a discretion entrusted to an experienced specialist body, albeit chaired by a lay member and containing an equal number of lay and professional members, I must give special place to its judgment: Fatani and Rashid v GMC[2007] EWCA Civ 46 , paragraphs 20 and 26.”
“The Panel is of the opinion that the onus was clearly on you to disclose the IOP conditions which were in place at the time you submitted your written applications for employment with the respective Trusts. It does not accept your argument that you did not read the ‘Declaration’ section of the application forms which require you to tick a box stating that the content of the application form is ‘true and complete’. [...] The Panel applied the Ghosh test and concluded firstly that what you did was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. By categorically stating on the application form that you did not have conditions on your registration was clearly incorrect and this would be viewed as being dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. Secondly, the Panel concluded that you must have realised that what you were doing would be regarded as dishonest by those standards. The Panel does not accept your explanation that you submitted an archived application form without checking it, as a reasonable excuse. The responsibility was clearly yours to ensure that the content of the applications was accurate before submitting it. You have told the Panel that you were embarrassed by the fact that your registration was restricted by the imposition of conditions and felt ashamed of it. You have also said that you were humiliated by this fact. The Panel is of the view that because of the effect which the conditions had on you, you knew what you were doing would be dishonest when you submitted the application forms.”
“Furthermore, you have told the Panel that, as a result of these proceedings, you have learnt to be vigilant in reading documents that you receive and send out. You have also explained that you now understand the role and purpose of the GMC and that you will be personally accountable should problems arise.”
“If applicable, please provide details of any conditions/restrictions you may have.”
“In February 2011, you submitted applications for employment (“the applications”) to a. Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, - has been admitted and found proved. b. Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. - has been admitted and found proved.”
“Paragraph 2 – In the applications, you failed to disclose that a. you were currently the subject of General Medical Council (“GMC”) fitness to practise proceedings, - has been found proved. The GMC’s Good Medical Practice (November 2006) sets out the requirement for doctors to be honest and open and act with integrity. Paragraph 65 states that ‘You must do your best to make sure that any documents you write or sign are not false or misleading. This means that you must take reasonable steps to verify the information in the documents, and that you must not deliberately leave out relevant information.’ The Panel is satisfied that you had an obligation to disclose the GMC proceedings on the applications. Furthermore, such obligation had been recently highlighted to you by the GMC. The Panel rejects your explanation that you thought you were not subject to proceedings at the time because you had appealed the decision of a Fitness to Practise Panel (FtP) to suspend your registration. You were aware that the appeal had not yet been heard and it must have been obvious to you, therefore, that the proceedings were ongoing. b. your registration was subject to an order of suspension imposed on16 December 2010 , not yet in force due to an ongoing appeal, - has been found proved. This follows from the Panel’s finding at paragraph 2(a). c. your registration had been subject to interim orders of suspension (“the IOP suspension orders”) between i.19 April 2010 and21 May 2010 , - has been found proved. ii.6 September 2010 and16 December 2010, - has been found proved. The relevant question on the applications was ‘Have you been removed from the register or have conditions been made on your registration by a fitness to practise committee or the licensing or regulatory body in the UK or in any other country?’. The question clearly covered any removal or conditions imposed by the GMC, which would include IOP orders. You have stated in evidence that, in hindsight, you concede this. The Panel is satisfied that the question refers to past as well as present restrictions, as indicated in the wording itself and also implied by the fact that a doctor would not be applying for medical employment if they were currently removed from the register. d. gaps in your employment history were, at least in part, a result of the IOP suspension order. - has been found proved. You have stated that you thought the question only referred to gaps such as maternity leave, sickness or sabbaticals, since the question did not mention GMC proceedings, and that this issue was not raised at your last FtP hearing. You have also stated that your work as a locum implied gaps in your employment. The relevant question on the applications asked you to state any gaps within your employment history. This was unqualified and there was therefore no basis to justify your limited interpretation of it. Accordingly, the Panel rejects your explanations. [...] Paragraph 4 - Your conduct at paragraph 2 was a. dishonest - has been found proved. The Panel considers that your conduct was dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. It is also satisfied that you realised that your conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards. You have given evidence to this Panel that, at the time of completing the applications in question, you thought you were able to apply for jobs. This was the case. At the Interim Orders Panel on27 April 2011 , the transcript of which was introduced into evidence at your request, you referenced the view that ‘Nobody would recruit anybody who has any problems with the General Medical Council’. In your oral evidence to this Panel you indicated that, not having declared your GMC history on the application form, you would have raised it at interview if asked. The Panel has found that you had an obligation to disclose previous and ongoing GMC proceedings and that you failed to do so was deliberately dishonest. b. misleading - has been found proved. The applications which you completed would have given the reader an inaccurate, and therefore misleading, portrayal of your circumstances.”
“The Panel has considered each of the outstanding paragraphs of the allegation separately. In doing so it has considered all of the evidence adduced, and has taken of Mr Atherton’s submissions on behalf of the GMC and Mr Wells’ submissions on your behalf. It has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests on the GMC throughout and that the standard is the civil standard of proof, namely the balance of probabilities. The Panel has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In particular, she has advised the Panel should give the word ‘fail’ its common usage, which implies not complying with an obligation to have done something. She advised that, when considering whether your conduct was misleading, the Panel should consider whether it was objectively misleading; it does not have to have been deliberately misleading. With regard to dishonesty, Counsel and the Legal Assessor have referred to the two stage test set out in the decision in the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Ghosh[1982] QB 1053 . In determining whether your actions were dishonest, the Panel must first of all decide whether, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the Panel must consider whether you must have realised that what you were doing was dishonest by those standards.” 14.2. In fact, as is apparent from the findings under paragraph 2, certain matters are found there which go to the issues also of whether under paragraph 4, Dr Hosny’s conduct was dishonest and misleading. It is these issues which are at the heart of the appeal. In short, Dr Hosny maintains her case that her non-disclosure was not dishonest and not misleading. As her counsel stated: [(i) Day 1, 11H] “...in that the doctor failed to disclose the details given, she does not deny that, that she did not disclose the information that has been outlined to you. Her contention is that there was no deliberate action on her part, no connotation of blame. The intention of the doctor here is absolutely key in whether or not the action was dishonest or whether it was deliberately misleading at the time.” [(ii) Day 2, 12A] “When the doctor read these forms she could not see where she was directly asked for that information, although I stress again she was also fully aware that the information was freely available on the Internet and would be checked by any prospective employers.” (2a)(2b)(2c) and (4): Issues 15.1. The determination of the 2010 FTPP was as follows: “... the Panel has determined to suspend your registration for a period of 12 months ... The effect of this direction is that, unless you exercise your right of appeal, the period of suspension will take effect 28 days from when written notice of this determination has been served upon you. A note explaining your right of appeal will be sent to you.” 15.2. Then the decision letter of the 2010 FTPP considered whether to impose an order for immediate suspension, and said: “...it is not necessary to make an order suspending your registration immediately. The substantive direction for suspension will take effect 28 days from when written notification is deemed to have been served upon you, unless an appeal is lodged in the interim. This means that the substantive direction for suspension, as already announced, will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed to have been served upon you. Your interim order of suspension is hereby revoked.”
“Are you currently the subject of a fitness to practise investigation or proceedings by a licensing or regulatory body in the UK or in any other country?” (ii) Her “registration was subject to an order of suspension imposed on16 December 2010 , not yet in force due to an ongoing appeal...”
“There was a conversation started when Dr Miller, in number F, said: ‘Thank you. Just to carry on from my colleague, is it correct to say for clarification purposes that this doctor was not subject to any sort of order or restriction on her practice between 16 December and 24 March?’ Miss Ledward, as the GMC representative, said: ‘That is right. The way it was worded on the GMC website is that she was subject to suspension but it was not yet in force and because the interim order had been revoked there was no restriction on her practice at that stage.’ Dr Miller further added: ‘Going on from that, is it correct that she was not, therefore, subject to any fitness to practice procedures? Miss Ledward answered: ‘The submission on behalf of the GMC is that is a different question. As you will appreciate, if one takes out the complicated factor of being after a fitness to practise determination, a doctor, as this doctor was, may’ -- she said ‘may’ -- ‘be subject to a fitness to practise investigation or proceedings, which is the question that the application form asks, without there being any restrictions on their practice at the time’. They are two different questions as to whether there is an investigation or proceedings underway and also whether the doctor’s practice is restricted in any way. The question that is asked on the application form, if I may just take one example, for example, page 30 of the bundle’ -- which your Honour has asked me about – ‘is that there are two separate questions. One is about conditions or restrictions, which it might be argued this doctor at this time was entitled to say, ‘No, there are none’ because the suspension was not in force.’”
“Q First of all, do you accept my premise that this, because of the way it is written, has to apply to the past and not necessarily to the present? A Yes. Q Right. I understood you to agree with me that the licensing and regulatory body in the United Kingdom is the General Medical Council? A Yes, so I felt that ‘no’ would not be the correct answer. That is why I left it blank. I was not sure whether to say yes or not. Q Why would you not say ‘yes’? A Because I have not been removed from the register and I did not have any conditions by fitness to practise. Q Excuse me, you did have conditions placed on you by the IOP, which is a body of the General Medical Council. A Yes, but it said ‘fitness to practise’, so half of the question ‘no’ and half of the question ‘yes’. That is why I felt -- maybe if I was asked and --- Q Doctor, I think you need to listen to the question and not rush into the same answer that you have just given. A Yes? Q Do you not understand the Interim Orders Panel to be operating on behalf of the General Medical Council? A I know the Interim Orders Panel and the Fitness to Practise Panels are panels and the General Medical Council is the executive body. Q Who keeps the register? A The General Medical Council. Q Right. Therefore, when you look at page 32, which we have looked at, and the register of your entry says -- this is the General Medical Council, it is not the Interim Orders Panel, the General Medical Council: ‘21 May to 20 August, this doctor had conditions’. A Yeah, but these conditions is being proposed by Interim Orders Panel. Q I am sorry, this is the register. This is your registration ... A Yes. Q ... by the General Medical Council and it says you had conditions. It does not say it is conditions that only apply to the Interim Orders Panel, does it? A Yeah, my understanding is that the General Medical Council do the end result of the Fitness to Practise Order/Interim Order Panel on my registration status. Q Right, but this is the licensing body and they have made a note that you had conditions on your registration. A Yeah, based upon the Interim Orders Panel decision. That is why -- I am very sorry if I am not able to send my message across. Like, for instance, if I was suspended by a Fitness to Practise Panel, it will appear on the General Medical Council web site as ‘suspended’.”
“You have given evidence to this Panel that, at the time of completing the applications in question, you thought you were able to apply for jobs. This was the case. However, in your evidence you stated that you did not think you would get a job if you declared everything. The Panel has found that you had an obligation to disclose previous and ongoing GMC proceedings and that you failed to do so was deliberately dishonest.”
“The information in this section is true and complete. I agree that any deliberate omission, falsification or misrepresentation in the application form will be grounds for rejecting this application or subsequent dismissal if employed by the organisation. Where applicable, I consent that the organisation can seek clarification regarding professional registration details.”
“If you have any gaps within your employment history, please state below. from April 2008 to present, I have been doing two months locum consultant posts in different hospitals all over the country including lincoln conty hospital, royal black burn hospital, royal cainthness hospital, bermingham city hospital, and in the british version Islands as well, in between doing some research being a member of the university for CPED. However, my love to cardiac anaesthesia outweighs my enjoyment in doing the above posts.”
“Paragraph 3 -- Since10 March 2011 , having been required to do so by the GMC, you failed to provide a completed Employer Details Form; - has been found proved. The panel has noted the email correspondence between you and the GMC, dated22 March 2011 . The first email from the GMC stated that a completed form had not been received and asked you to provide one. You replied and informed the GMC that you had not completed a form because you were not employed. The GMC’s reply confirmed that you were still required to provide a completed form. You informed the Panel that you did not see the GMC’s second email. You have admitted that you did not provide a completed Employer Details Form. You have stated that you did not look past page one of the form because you did not think that you needed to complete it since you were not working at the time. The form included a section for any non-NHS work, and a section to be completed if self-employed or not currently employed. The Panel is satisfied that you had an obligation to provide a completed Employer Details Form whether or not you were in paid employment, and that you would have been aware of this obligation, as drawn to your attention repeatedly, if you had read the form properly and read your emails.” 27.1. The basis of this allegation was contained in a statement from Claire Henesy, a GMC employee, dated13 June 2011 . This said at paragraphs 2-4: “Part of my role is to disclose to the doctor the information that the General Medical Council has received that may raise concerns over their fitness to practice in accordance with Rule 4 of theGeneral Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 . Disclosure of the application form from Cambridge University Hospital was issued on10 March 2011 to Dr Hosny under cover of the notice of hearing from the Interim Orders Panel. Dr Hosny was asked to complete and return the Employment Disclosure Form by17 March 2011 . I attach marked as Exhibit CH/1 my letter dated10 March 2011 . 3. On22 March 2011 I emailed Dr Hosny as I had not received her completed Employer Disclosure Form. I attached to the email the Employer Disclosure Form and asked that it be completed and provided to me by23 March 2011 . Dr Hosny replied to my email on the22 March 2011 stating that ‘...... this means that I will remain jobless. thats why I did not fill employers details because I am not employed’. I replied to Dr Hosny on22 March 2011 asking that she complete the form. I attach marked as Exhibit CH/2 my email exchange with Dr Hosny dated22 March 2011 . 4. Dr Hosny has not completed and returned the Employer Disclosure Form.”
“As part of our standard enquiries, I need to contact your employers to provide them with a copy of the complaint and ask them to provide any further information they have on these or any wider issues. To do this, I need you to complete and return the attached form, giving details of all your current employers. If you work within your own private clinic, we also ask that you provide details of all complaints you have received in the last 6 months.”
“... so long as the GMC issue is still going on, there will be no chances whatsoever to find any work, this means I will remain jobless. thats why I didnt fill employers details because I am not employed.”
“Thank you for your response. I must ask that you complete and return the employer disclosure form even it if means you stating n/a to all the sections. It is a requirement that you complete and return the form to the GMC.”
“I was overseas at that time. I was not employed at all so I was not -- I did not know what to do. I did not want to write something which is not correct. I could not say that I am registered with this person when I am not or I am not sure of, so I could write something except I am dead sure about. As a result I told Claire Henesy I am not employed. This is called an employment form, so as a result I did not fill it.” 28.2. In cross-examination she was asked about this. The reference is Day 1/33 to Day 1/35. I shall read only the evidence on the email from Miss Henesy on22 March 2011 at 15.12: “Q: What is there not to understand about that? A: This email from Claire, I have just seen it when it was submitted by the bundle to the GMC. At that time I did not read this email. I wish I read it, I would have written ‘not available’, but it was only -- I only seen this e-mail when it was sent to me in this bundle, so I have not seen it at the time when the communication between me and Claire at that time. Q: It was sent to you on the same day? A: Yeah. Q: You have seen the other one sent earlier that day? A: Yeah, because she sent it and I responded, but I have not seen -- have I to say I have not seen this email. Had I seen it there was no problem writing “not available” at all -- she would have made my job very easy -- but I was not sure what to write. Had I read this email, it would have been very easy to write “not available” and resubmit it. Q: You are lying, are you not? A: Lying? Q: You are lying. You saw this email? A: I have not seen this email except when I saw the bundle. Q: You are, as demonstrated on many occasions, thoroughly dishonest, and you are being dishonest now. A: No, I am not dishonest. I have not seen this email except when it was sent in the bundle -- at all. Q: It was sent to you on the same day? Q: You have seen the other one sent earlier that day? Q: You are lying, are you not? A: Lying? Q: You are lying. You saw this email? 29.1. In paragraphs 34 to 37 of ground 3 of her appeal (there is a numbering error, there being two paragraphs 37 and 38), Dr Hosny says: “34. The Panel didn’t accept Dr Hosny’s explanation and even repeated their false determination that Dr Hosny was working in Egypt, however they were later corrected with regards their mistake that Dr Hosny was not working at all, they accepted that they were wrong and corrected it, still their determination did not change as a result. 35. In fact it was clear throughout the proceedings that the Panel were mistaken on various occasions, and in spite of admitting that they were wrong in their interpretation to which they based the decision of dishonesty, still persisted nevertheless that Dr Hosny was dishonest and misleading. 36. The Panel did not put any weight to the fact that Dr Hosny was submitting her evidence whilst in the Witness box. 37. The Panel looked at every evidence Dr Hosny had submitted as limited and reflected any interpretation as poor.” 29.2. The point about not working arose from cross-examination (reference D1/33), where Dr Hosny said she was doing charity work in Egypt from June 2011 to date, but added that she was getting no money and it was just for charity rather than proper working. The FTPP, Day 2/19, said: “You have admitted that you did not provide a completed Employer Details Form. You have stated that you did not look past page one of the form because you did not think that you needed to complete since you were not working in the UK. The Panel notes from your evidence that you were working in Egypt at the time. The form included a section for any non-NHS work and a section to be completed if self-employed or not currently employed. The Panel is satisfied that you had an obligation to provide a completed Employer Details Form whether or not you were in paid employment, and that you would have been aware of this obligation, as drawn to your attention repeatedly, if you had read the form properly and read your emails.”
“The Panel has considered the question of impaired Fitness to Practise in relation to both the new and review elements of your case. In doing so, it has considered the evidence adduced, Mr Atherton’s submissions on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC) and Mr Wells’s submissions on your behalf. Mr Atherton submitted that, in the light of your lack of insight and repetition of dishonesty, your fitness to practise remains impaired by your previous misconduct and is impaired by the new findings of misconduct. Mr Wells submitted that you have complied with the requests of the previous Panel and have demonstrated some insight. The Legal Assessor referred to relevant case law, including the cases of Zygmunt v GMC[2008] EWHC 2643 (Admin) and Cohen v GMC[2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) . In December 2010, a Fitness to Practise [FTP] Panel found that, between March 2008 and July 2009, you sent a reference to five healthcare agencies and that you represented to those agencies a reference which was dishonest. The Panel found that your representations were false and dishonest, in that you had written the reference yourself. The December 2010 Panel also found that, in respect of written applications for employment to the Bart’s and London Hospitals NHS Trust and the North Devon Healthcare Trust, you failed to disclose that you are currently the subject of General Medical Council Fitness to Practise proceedings and that your registration was subject to conditions imposed by a GMC Interim Orders Panel (IOP). It found that your conduct was dishonest and that you had breached a condition imposed on your registration by the IOP. In relation to your dishonest conduct, the December 2010 Panel concluded that your fitness to practise was impaired by reason of your misconduct and determined to suspend your registration for a period of twelve months. You lodged an appeal against the decision, which was dismissed, and the period of suspension took effect on17 May 2011 . The December 2010 Panel stated that the panel reviewing your case would be assisted by Evidence of the steps that you have taken to keep your professional knowledge current and to keep your professional skills up to date. Any current testimonials from people of standing and potential employers. Evidence of relevant courses attended. This Panel recommends that you undertake a course in medical ethics. The Panel has noted your evidence and the documentation submitted on your behalf. In particular, on23 May 2011 , you completed an online ‘Fundamentals of Medical Ethics’ course and, from 30 July to1 August 2011 , you attended a ‘Medical Ethics Course’. You also submitted testimonials and drew to the Panel’s attention that, on30 March 2012 , you were promoted to an Assistant Professor in Anaesthesia Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, and that since July 2011 you have been involved in clinical practice in Egypt. The Panel is satisfied that you have taken the steps directed by the December 2010 Panel. Nonetheless, it is concerned that you have repeated the very behaviour which resulted in a finding of impaired fitness to practise within two months of the end of the previous hearing. You once again omitted relevant material from job application forms, despite telling the last Panel that you had learnt to be vigilant in reading documents that you receive and send out, that you understand the role and purpose of the GMC and that you would be personally accountable should problems arise in the future. The Panel is satisfied that this repetition of dishonest conduct does amount to misconduct. In considering whether your misconduct amounts to impairment of your fitness to practise, the Panel has had regard to paragraph 29 of the Zygmunt judgment which refers to paragraph 25.50 of Dame Janet Smith’s fifth Shipman Report, where she identified recurrent features of cases in which impairment of Fitness to Practise had been found to exist: ‘(a) that the doctor presented a risk to patients. (b) that the doctor had brought the professional into disrepute. (c) that the doctor had breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession. (d) that the doctor’s integrity could not be relied upon.’ It has also had regard to paragraph 65 of the Cohen judgment, which states that: ‘...It must be highly relevant in determining if a doctor’s fitness to practise is impaired that first his or her conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable, second that it has been remedied and third that it is highly unlikely to be repeated.’ In reviewing the findings of the previous FTP Panel, the panel has noted paragraph 116 of the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance, which states that: ‘... The Panel will also need to satisfy itself that the doctor has fully appreciated the gravity of the offence, has not re-offended, and has maintained his or her skills and knowledge ...’ The Panel considers that your dishonest conduct breached a fundamental tenet of Good Medical Practice, which states that ‘Probity means being honest and trustworthy, and acting with integrity: this is at the heart of medical professionalism’. It considers that dishonesty is not easily remediable but, in any event, your repetition of such conduct just two months after your first FTP hearing raises serious concerns. You stated to the December 2010 Panel that you were reckless when you applied for the NHS posts and admitted that it was wrong to do so without updating your particulars. However, your evidence to this Panel was that you did not accept the findings of the December 2010 Panel, that their findings were only on the balance of probabilities and that you have evidence to disprove their finding of dishonesty even though this was not accepted by the Administrative Court. The Panel considers this to demonstrate a complete lack of insight. The Panel is satisfied that your conduct has brought the profession into disrepute, that you have breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, and that your integrity cannot be relied upon. It has determined that your Fitness to Practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct. The Panel will now invite further evidence and submissions as to the appropriate direction, if any, to be made in relation to your registration.”
“A person’s fitness to practise shall be regarded as ‘impaired’ for the purposes of this Act by reason only of— (a)misconduct ...”
“On a natural reading section 35C(2) introduces a test with two elements: first, fitness to practise must be impaired; secondly, by reason of one of the five circumstances set out in subsections (a) to (e).” (a)misconduct ...”
“The decision to erase Dr Hosny from the medical register would deprive totally Dr Hosny from working anywhere in the world who all fully respect the GMC as a regulatory body and would respect their decision, and this is applied not only in the UK but also every other country including Egypt, the fact that she was staff member of the university and Associate professor is purely academic and is a charity when coming to clinical practice, Dr Hosny doesn’t earn any money from this Job she is being prevented from earning a living in this active stage of her career was an interference with the appellant’s right under Article 8(1), a right to respect [for] family and private life. Being a single mother and carries the load of fully supporting her son any interference with Article 8 (1) must be justified as necessary pursuant to a legitimate aim and proportionate. In all the circumstances the decision was unnecessary and/or wholly disproportionate and hence unlawful.”
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
“The main objective of the General Council in exercising their functions is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public.”