James v Medical Board of South Australia and Keogh

[2006] SASC 267

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Professions and Trades
2. › Medical practitioners
3. › Discipline
4. › Complaints of unprofessional conduct
5. › Whether disciplinary proceedings constitute abuse of process as collateral attack on criminal conviction
6. › Whether Medical Board has implied power to determine abuse of process
7. › Medical Practitioners Act 1983 (SA), ss 5(1), 54(1)(d), 54(2)(a)
1. Evidence
2. › Witnesses
3. › Immunities
4. › Witness immunity
5. › Whether witness immunity extends to disciplinary proceedings before Medical Board
6. › Whether complaint of unprofessional conduct based on evidence given in court constitutes suit from which witness is immune
7. › Medical Practitioners Act 1983 (SA), s 16(4)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Supreme Court procedure
3. › Judicial review
4. › Prohibition and mandamus
5. › Whether court should intervene to prevent statutory tribunal from exercising jurisdiction
6. › Whether existence of mere possibility of exceeding jurisdiction sufficient
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Inferior courts and tribunals
3. › Implied powers
4. › Power to stay proceedings for abuse of process
5. › Whether disciplinary tribunal has implied power to control its own proceedings

Quick Take

Witness immunity from civil suit does not extend to protect medical practitioners from disciplinary proceedings before the Medical Board based on evidence given in court or before the Board. Disciplinary tribunals have an implied power to stay their own proceedings for abuse of process, and the Supreme Court will generally require that abuse of process arguments be put to the tribunal in the first instance rather than pre-empting the tribunal's decision. The English decision in Meadow v General Medical Council, which extended witness immunity to disciplinary proceedings, does not represent the law in Australia.