Facts
- Dr. Michalak, a general practitioner, was subject to allegations of dishonesty related to a compensation claim following a minor road traffic accident.
- The General Medical Council (GMC) found these allegations proven and imposed the sanction of erasure from the medical register.
- Dr. Michalak argued that the sanction was disproportionate and discriminatory, citing Article 14 (non-discrimination) together with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The Supreme Court considered whether the GMC had correctly applied the proportionality test in imposing the sanction.
Issues
- Whether the GMC’s sanction of erasure was a proportionate response to the misconduct allegations against Dr. Michalak.
- Whether the GMC adequately considered less restrictive measures that could have achieved its regulatory objective.
- Whether the proportionality assessment in the discrimination claim properly followed the structured approach required under Article 14 and Article 8 ECHR.
- Whether there was a rational connection and necessity linking the sanction chosen with the legitimate aim pursued by the regulator.
Decision
- The Supreme Court confirmed the necessity for a structured approach to proportionality in discrimination cases involving professional regulators.
- It held that the GMC failed to demonstrate that erasure, as opposed to a less severe sanction, was necessary to achieve the regulatory objective of maintaining public confidence.
- The Court emphasized that the availability of less restrictive, equally effective measures should have been carefully considered.
- Regulatory bodies are required to establish a clear link between the chosen sanction and the legitimate regulatory objective pursued.
Legal Principles
- Proportionality under administrative law requires that measures taken by regulatory bodies should not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
- The proportionality test involves: (1) identifying a legitimate aim, (2) ensuring a rational connection between the measure and the aim, (3) determining necessity, including the availability of less restrictive measures, and (4) achieving a fair balance between individual rights and the public interest.
- In discrimination cases, regulatory bodies must justify sanctions as necessary, considering whether less restrictive alternatives could achieve the same objective.
- A clear and reasoned link must be demonstrated between the chosen action and the regulatory purpose, particularly when fundamental rights under the ECHR are engaged.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in Michalak v General Medical Council [2017] UKSC 71 established that a rigorous, structured proportionality assessment is required in discrimination claims involving professional regulation. Regulatory bodies must consider less restrictive measures and justify the necessity of the chosen sanction in achieving legitimate aims, ensuring disciplinary measures are fair, justified, and adequately balanced with individual rights.
