Dr. T v The Medical Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Kearns P.
• Judgment Date: 19 July 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] IEHC 352
• Docket Number: [No. 87 SP/2011]
• Date: 19 July 2011

Dr. T v The Medical Council

IN THE MATTER OF THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 75 THEREOF

BETWEEN

DR. T.

APPELANT

AND

THE MEDICAL COUNCIL

RESPONDENT

[2011] IEHC 352

[No. 87 SP/2011]

THE HIGH COURT

PROFESSIONS

Medical

Professional misconduct - Disciplinary inquiry - Fair hearing - Delay of 14 years in making complaint - Whether substantial unfairness in allowing matter proceed to full rehearing - Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (No 25) , s 75 - Appeal allowed (2011/87SP - Kearns P - 19/7/2011) [2011] IEHC 352

Dr T v Medical Council

Facts: An application was made pursuant to s. 75 Medical Practitioners Act 2007 cancelling the decision of the Medical Council, whereby the applicant had been found guilty of professional misconduct pursuant to a report of the Fitness to Practise Committee. A complaint had been made of an inappropriate internal examination by the complainant in unwarranted circumstances. A period of 14 years had passed until the complainant made the complaint. The grounds of appeal advanced were that inter alia such a lengthy delay had passed and whether an unfair hearing would be replicated by a repeat hearing.

Held by President Kearns that the Court would allow the appeal and cancel the decision of the respondent. The name of the medical practitioner in question would not be published. The doctor had been placed in a virtually impossible position and was unable to meet the complaint.

Reporter: E.F.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S75

TOAL v DUIGNAN 1991 ILRM 135 1991 ILRM 140

SHINE v FITNESS TO PRACTICE COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL 2009 1 IR 283

Kearns P.

1 This application is one for an order pursuant to s. 75 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 cancelling the decision of the Medical Council made on 19^th January, 2011 whereby, having regard to the report of the Fitness to Practise Committee dated 22nd December, 2010, the applicant was found guilty of professional misconduct in respect of two allegations in relation to conduct alleged to have occurred on a single occasion in or around January 1996 at his surgery in a rural part of Ireland. The complaint was of an inappropriate internal examination of the complainant in circumstances which did not warrant any such examination.

2 Far from coming forward with a speedy complaint, a period of some 14 years elapsed before the complainant eventually did come forward to make a complaint to the Medical Council, and they did, quite properly, have serious regard to the complaint and did deploy their various procedures in relation to it and aprima facie case was found to have arisen by virtue of the. complaint which led to a full three day hearing before the fitness to Practise Committee. But the question which now arises on appeal, as a preliminary issue, is the very issue that arose at the very start of the full hearing before the Fitness to Practise Committee and it is this: can there be - in the particular circumstances such as arise in the instant case - a fair hearing having regard to the delay and its prejudicial consequences for the applicant arising from that delay?

3 The application before the Court raises various grounds of appeal but basically the grounds of appeal are that the Fitness to Practise Committee should not have proceeded further with the hearing because of the lengthy delay and secondly the allegations were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt...