Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

to set up and the new arrangements would take a number of years to establish”. 18
This may mean that in practice this option is unlikely to be taken forward.
Question 9-2: Should the new legal framework ensure the separation of
investigation and adjudication, and if so how?
Question 9-3: Should the statute allow for the option of the regulators’
adjudication systems joining the Unified Tribunals Service?
CASE MANAGEMENT
9.27 Pre-hearing case management is a process by which the issues in dispute are
identified at an early stage, arrangements are put in place to ensure that
evidence (whether disputed or not) is presented clearly, the needs of witnesses
are taken into account and a timetable is established for the conduct of the
proceedings. Some regulators have specific case management provisions in their
legislation.
9.28 The Health Professions Council’s governing legislation requires that fitness to
practise proceedings must be conducted “expeditiously” and, for that purpose,
enables its practice committees to give directions for the conduct of cases and for
the consequences of failure to comply with such directions (which may include
the making of an order or refusal of an application if the failure to comply was
without reasonable excuse). 19 The Council has issued standard directions which
apply automatically as default directions in every case. Those standard directions
relate to the exchange of documentation, notices to admit facts, notices to admit
documents, notice to admit witness statements and the withdrawal of
admissions. 20 The Council is reviewing the information that is provided to panels
and registrants in bundles, including the provision of a skeleton argument in all
final hearing cases. 21
9.29 The General Medical Council’s case management rules allow for the appointment
of one or more legally qualified case managers who may issue directions to the
parties on a range of matters such as the disclosure of evidence, witness details
and skeleton arguments. Where a party fails to comply with a direction, the
Fitness to Practise Panel may draw an adverse inference; for example it can
place less weight on evidence that is presented late. 22 In practice, this power is
used rarely, and there are no other sanctions available if parties refuse to engage
with a direction. The Council has put forward proposals to allow evidence to be
excluded which is sought to be introduced in breach of directions and introduce a
18 Department of Health, Fitness to Practise Adjudication for Health Professionals: Assessing
Different Mechanisms for Delivery: Consultation Report (2010) p 11.
19 Health Professions Order 2001, SI 2002 No 254, art 32(3).
20 Health Professions Council, Practice Note: Case Management and Directions (2011).
21 Health Professions Council, Fitness to Practise Adjudication for Health Professionals:
Assessing Different Mechanisms for Delivery: A Review of the HPC’s Approach (2011)
para 2.2.4.
22
General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004, SI 2004 No
2608, r 16.
164