Report comment

The SDT must set out proper details of these "medical conditions" in its judgments. It is very coy about giving such details, which is not appropriate and makes it impossible for practitioners (and those advising them) to know what penalty is likely to be imposed. It also creates the impression that it is trying to save people's blushes, which is not the role of an independent tribunal.

Here, the SDT has actually redacted the name of the medical condition when quoting from the medical report: see paragraph 21 of the judgment.