Background
The General Optical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee found registered optometrist Suleman Patel guilty of serious misconduct involving dishonesty, determined that his fitness to practise was impaired, and imposed a nine-month suspension. The suspension was stayed pending appeal. Mr Patel appealed under section 23G(3) of the Opticians Act 1989, but the Administrative Court dismissed his appeal.
The proceedings in the Administrative Court were highly unusual. The Deputy High Court Judge heard the substantive appeal remotely while recovering from a ruptured Achilles tendon and reclining in bed, initially reporting difficulty navigating electronic bundles and taking notes. Although he delivered oral reasons shortly afterward, the final written judgment was not supplied until 16 months after the hearing. At the time of the Court of Appeal’s decision, no final order disposing of the High Court appeal had been made and consequential issues remained unresolved.
Mr Patel sought permission to bring a second appeal, alleging that the handling of the case made the judgment unreliable and rendered the decision unjust because of procedural irregularity. The Court of Appeal extended time by one day for his application but declined to entertain unnotified challenges to the substantive reasoning, particularly because the General Optical Council had not been required to attend the permission hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. It held that, although the proceedings involved multiple serious and continuing procedural irregularities, Mr Patel had no real prospect of showing that they caused injustice or made the Deputy Judge’s decision unsafe. The hearing transcript showed that the Deputy Judge remained engaged with the evidence and arguments, and there was no suggestion that he overlooked any document or submission.
The 16-month delay in supplying the final written judgment breached the parties’ right to a decision within a reasonable time, but delay alone did not justify setting the judgment aside. The Deputy Judge had given oral reasons within 16 days of the hearing, no substantive difference between those reasons and the final judgment was alleged, and Mr Patel identified no error attributable to the delay. A rehearing would create further delay without an arguable benefit.
The Court also rejected the contention that justice had not been seen to be done. Despite the unsatisfactory surrounding procedures, the appeal had received full and careful consideration and prompt, substantively unchallenged reasons. There was neither a real prospect of a successful appeal nor an important point of principle, practice, or other compelling reason warranting a second appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Excessive delay in finalizing a judgment does not by itself require the judgment to be set aside; an applicant must present an arguable case that the delay made the decision unsafe or caused relevant injustice.
- Procedural irregularities will not support an appeal where the underlying case was fully considered and no resulting substantive error or unfairness is identified.
- Absent exceptional circumstances, judges should conduct hearings only when they have suitable working conditions, ready access to the case materials, and an unimpaired ability to take notes.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes unacceptable judicial administration from appealable injustice. Even serious delays and irregularities will not invalidate an otherwise safe decision unless the applicant can connect them to unfairness or an unreliable result.
The Court nevertheless issued firm guidance: conducting a substantial hearing from bed should be a last resort, reading out a “draft” oral judgment should be discouraged, and judges and court staff must ensure that judgments, consequential matters, and final orders are completed promptly. The Court directed that its judgment could be reported and cited despite arising from a permission application.