This case is of interest to me as a medical practitioner.The Medical Board of T&T (MBTT) is comprised of all medical practitioners (doctors) fully registered under the Medical Board Act. The council is the executive authority of the MBTT with responsibility (inter alia) for the disciplining of doctors who are guilty of "infamous or disgraceful conduct" in a professional respect. Of note the council has absolutely no power to discipline any person or entity who is not a doctor.
The council has been described as a quasi-judicial body. However, it has absolutely no judicial power. It cannot summon any person to appear before it, even if that person is a doctor. Neither can it compel the production of evidence. In addition, it has no substantive investigative powers since it cannot enter premises or seize evidence.
In the reported scenario, the council only has the authority to request information from people/entities that may have relevant information. Such request has no force of compulsion and may be denied without consequence (except for a doctor).
A doctor who fails to heed the request of the council may be found to have performed a deed that is "infamous or disgraceful conduct" in a professional respect, but it is not entirely clear whether such a finding will hold in a court of law (all disciplinary decisions of the council are subject to review by a judge in chambers).
I note the reported expectation of the Attorney General with regard to an investigation by the council and wish through your medium to put a question to him. Is it appropriate for the council to begin an investigation in circumstances where there is an active on-going criminal investigation?
Would the council, making enquiries of potential criminal subjects, be deemed to be interfering in a criminal investigation? The council has been wise to be circumspect and act with deliberate speed and not jeopardise any investigation. Now that it appears that the criminal investigation has met a dead end, the council need no longer be fettered.
However, one wonders what the council can bring to light in circumstances where an assistant DPP has determined that the police investigators have not produced sufficient evidence for a prosecution. Any sole reliance on the council to bring justice in this matter is misplaced and is probably a reflection of the failure of the justice system in a broader respect.
Rajendra Persad,
via e-mail