Report comment

One of the main problems with the judgment of Flaux LJ is that it makes very difficult to know what will ever amount to "exceptional circumstances". If dishonesty committed while mentally ill does not consistute "exceptional circumstances", what does meet that test?

Part of the problem here is that there are no separate rules on (medical) fitness to practise. The Law Society raised this point in its recent response to the SDT consultation, but no journalist seems to have picked up on it. The conclusions reached by Flaux LJ underline the need for a proper, informed debate on the topic of fitness to practise rules.