The Hon Mr Justice Ouseley will present this year's keynote address
The words are equally simple and are being used in more and more disciplinary matters.
Daily as we listen to the news broadcasts floating from one disaster to the next we marvel over the insensitivity of those making pronouncements especially when they themselves appear to at least share culpability. Is it insensivity or lack of insight that we are witnessing?
'Insight' and 'professional insight' are words that we are beginning to become accustomed to seeing in the disciplinary world. To what extent are they current jargon or do they really draw us to an important principle?
‘Failed to show Insight’ is so easy to say but what does it really mean? The dictionary definition of ‘insight’ is: ‘The ability to see and understand the truth about someone or something’.This is followed by an interesting bevy of synonyms from ‘acumen’ to ‘shrewdness’ to ‘wisdom’.... does the word have a different meaning when it has the prefix ‘Professional’?
If there is an allegation of failing to show Insight does the Member automatically prove the charge by pleading ‘not guilty’?
Regaining and maintaining public confidence in the professions
The theme for the 2015 Disciplininary Conference was 'Trust'.
After a number of high profile issues and a general loss of confidence by the public in the professions and professionals we will be examining how the professions can regain and maintain the trust that was once held.
The keynote address in 2015 was given by Supreme Court Judge, Lord Toulson.
General Optical Council John Ellison
Bar Standards Board Robert Bourns
The Law Society Gareth Rees QC
Financial Reporting Council
Privilege, Confidentiality & Data Protection
If it isn’t recorded it didn’t happen – proving reliability
Trust is a word that we use every day but what does it mean? Does it have a single meaning and how do we know the sense in which it is being used? In the end we have to rely on context and trust we have it right!
Without doubt trust is at the heart of the relationships between the professions and those they serve. The practitioners in law, medicine, finance and the many others alongside the Institutes to which they belong require the nebulous trust; but how do we create it, how can we nourish it and maintain it? These and many other questions will be discussed by our distinguished speakers.
Meanwhile we daily read of ‘incidents’ which damage if not destroy trust. We used to use the rhetorical question ‘would you buy a second hand car from this person?’. Ultimately it is probably not a bad rule of thumb. In recent months we have had the fare dodger banned for life from working in the Regulated Financial World whilst we have had the court remove a blanket suspension and substitute one relating to the specific area of failing. The logic being that the breach did not affect the general ability to practice. But with the new ‘Duty of Candour’ will every potential patient have to be informed and if so for how long?
All these and many other questions are vitally important if the professions as we know them are to survive this century. However at the end of the day I suspect we will all know that Trust is vitally important but wonder what steps we can take to create it.
The ‘Public Interest’ is a concept with which society appears enamoured.
What is the Public Interest? Surely not everything of interest to the public.
Recent controversy involving the royal family must surely have highlighted the distinction. But how about the ‘Twelve Just Men’ - should justice be dispensed because we know rather than can prove?
In the increasingly complex field of regulation the ‘Public Interest’ is becoming even more of a minefield. Information sharing, privilege, confidentiality and data protection legislation do not necessarily fit comfortably with the notion of “protecting the public at any cost”.
The Hon Mr Justice Foskett
That was the year … a legal update Tony Child – Browne Jacobson