GOC consultation on indicative sanctions guidance

The GOC consulted on the updates proposed to their indicative sanctions guidance which supports members of the fitness to practise committee in understanding their responsibilities. The key purpose is to help them make fair decisions in determining registrant’s fitness to practise and deciding upon appropriate sanctions. The consultation asked for feedback from sector stakeholders on sections pertaining to:

• Equality and diversity
• Adjournments and proceeding in the absence of the registrant
• Mitigating factors
• Absence of evidence in mitigation
• Criminal conviction
• Dishonesty
• Findings of fact
• Discrimination
• Sexual misconduct or sexual harassment.

Our response

The AOP supported the vast majority of the amendments made to the guidance for fitness to practise committee members.

However, our review identified areas where further clarification or redrafting could improve clarity, consistency and alignment with existing legislation:

Lack of consistent terminology

Our response highlighted the importance of consistent terminology, both within this guidance but also across all guidance published by the GOC. Without clear definitions used uniformly, fitness to practise committee members could struggle to identify behaviours accurately and apply the relevant legal standards. This could result in inconsistent or disproportionate sanctions.

Confusion between different grounds of impairment

According to legislation, misconduct (including sexual misconduct) and convictions are separate grounds of impairment. This is a crucial distinction that was not clarified in the guidance document. Merging these two branches of impairment within the guidance breaches statutory boundaries and runs the risk of clouding committee judgement.

We advised that clear distinction should be drawn for ease of understanding for the committee. This would ensure that correct legal processes and tests can be applied to each cases enhancing clarity, transparency, and fairness for all parties involved.

Recommended sanctions and perceived bias

We also proposed that any recommendation of sanction in the guidance document should not be included as the committees are independent bodies and thus their autonomy should not be undermined. Committee members should not be advised to dissuade from a position they have formulated or consider any starting point.

Defining dishonesty and mitigating factors

We advised that the GOC pay more attention to the authorities cited in the guidance – ensuring that they represent a more balanced view. We stressed that full acknowledgement must be given towards mitigating circumstances as over emphasis can create harsher rulings and disproportionate sanctions.