To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand?
Profession-related disciplinary tribunals consider a range of factors when determining penalties following findings of professional misconduct. Penalties that impose conditions on practice hold the potential to facilitate practitioners’ rehabilitation back to safe practice. This study explores the u...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Laws |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/6/69 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846103931250278400 |
|---|---|
| author | Lois Surgenor Kate Diesfeld Marta Rychert Olivia Kelly Kate Kersey |
| author_facet | Lois Surgenor Kate Diesfeld Marta Rychert Olivia Kelly Kate Kersey |
| author_sort | Lois Surgenor |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Profession-related disciplinary tribunals consider a range of factors when determining penalties following findings of professional misconduct. Penalties that impose conditions on practice hold the potential to facilitate practitioners’ rehabilitation back to safe practice. This study explores the use of penalty conditions by three disciplinary tribunals in New Zealand (the Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal [LCDT]; the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [HPDT]; and the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal [TDT]). Disciplinary decisions published between 2018 and 2022 (N = 538) were analysed, coding the explicit reasons cited for imposing or not imposing conditions and if rehabilitation was cited as a penalty principle. Conditions were imposed in 58.6% of the cases, though tribunals varied. All of the tribunals commonly referred to the concepts of remorse/insight, or lack of it, as reasons for ordering or not ordering conditions, and they often considered the seriousness of the misconduct. Reasons for not ordering conditions were more varied between tribunals, as was citing rehabilitation as a penalty principle. The findings suggest that tribunals give substantial consideration to the decision of imposing conditions, drawing on both objective (e.g., past misconduct) and subjective (e.g., cognitive and psychological) phenomena. The reasons did align with concepts found in broad sentencing guidelines from some other jurisdictions (e.g., criminal justice response), though future research on defining and measuring these concepts may help understand their predictive and protective utility. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5ea87b6a3451472993d2fc3b22319d24 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2075-471X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Laws |
| spelling | doaj-art-5ea87b6a3451472993d2fc3b22319d242024-12-27T14:35:44ZengMDPI AGLaws2075-471X2024-11-011366910.3390/laws13060069To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand?Lois Surgenor0Kate Diesfeld1Marta Rychert2Olivia Kelly3Kate Kersey4Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch 8140, New ZealandSchool of Public Health and Interprofessional Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 92006, New ZealandSHORE and Whariki Research Centre, Massey University, Auckland 1142, New ZealandSchool of Public Health and Interprofessional Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 92006, New ZealandSchool of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New ZealandProfession-related disciplinary tribunals consider a range of factors when determining penalties following findings of professional misconduct. Penalties that impose conditions on practice hold the potential to facilitate practitioners’ rehabilitation back to safe practice. This study explores the use of penalty conditions by three disciplinary tribunals in New Zealand (the Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal [LCDT]; the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [HPDT]; and the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal [TDT]). Disciplinary decisions published between 2018 and 2022 (N = 538) were analysed, coding the explicit reasons cited for imposing or not imposing conditions and if rehabilitation was cited as a penalty principle. Conditions were imposed in 58.6% of the cases, though tribunals varied. All of the tribunals commonly referred to the concepts of remorse/insight, or lack of it, as reasons for ordering or not ordering conditions, and they often considered the seriousness of the misconduct. Reasons for not ordering conditions were more varied between tribunals, as was citing rehabilitation as a penalty principle. The findings suggest that tribunals give substantial consideration to the decision of imposing conditions, drawing on both objective (e.g., past misconduct) and subjective (e.g., cognitive and psychological) phenomena. The reasons did align with concepts found in broad sentencing guidelines from some other jurisdictions (e.g., criminal justice response), though future research on defining and measuring these concepts may help understand their predictive and protective utility.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/6/69professional misconductpenalty conditionsrehabilitationdisciplinary tribunals |
| spellingShingle | Lois Surgenor Kate Diesfeld Marta Rychert Olivia Kelly Kate Kersey To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand? Laws professional misconduct penalty conditions rehabilitation disciplinary tribunals |
| title | To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand? |
| title_full | To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand? |
| title_fullStr | To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand? |
| title_full_unstemmed | To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand? |
| title_short | To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand? |
| title_sort | to impose or not impose penalty conditions following professional misconduct what factors are cited by three professional disciplinary tribunals in new zealand |
| topic | professional misconduct penalty conditions rehabilitation disciplinary tribunals |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/6/69 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT loissurgenor toimposeornotimposepenaltyconditionsfollowingprofessionalmisconductwhatfactorsarecitedbythreeprofessionaldisciplinarytribunalsinnewzealand AT katediesfeld toimposeornotimposepenaltyconditionsfollowingprofessionalmisconductwhatfactorsarecitedbythreeprofessionaldisciplinarytribunalsinnewzealand AT martarychert toimposeornotimposepenaltyconditionsfollowingprofessionalmisconductwhatfactorsarecitedbythreeprofessionaldisciplinarytribunalsinnewzealand AT oliviakelly toimposeornotimposepenaltyconditionsfollowingprofessionalmisconductwhatfactorsarecitedbythreeprofessionaldisciplinarytribunalsinnewzealand AT katekersey toimposeornotimposepenaltyconditionsfollowingprofessionalmisconductwhatfactorsarecitedbythreeprofessionaldisciplinarytribunalsinnewzealand |