Medical Council v Eynsford Stephen Kwaku Boateng
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hedigan |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] IEHC 34 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 01 February 2011 |
[2011] IEHC 34
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S71
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 PART 6
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 PART 7
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 PART 8
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 PART 9
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S69
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S71
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S74
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S71(A)
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S75
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S76
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S76(2)
SOLICITORS ACT, IN RE 1960 IR 239
M v MEDICAL COUNCIL 1984 IR 485
K (C) v BORD ALTRANAIS 1990 2 IR 396
MEDICAL COUNCIL v O (PA) 2004 2 IR 12 2004 2 ILRM 161
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1978 S51
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 S60
PROFESSIONS
Medical profession
Professional misconduct - Inquiry - Confirmation of decision - Costs -Censuring of practitioner - Imposition of conditions upon registration -Whether applicant entitled to costs where consent to application - Jurisdiction of court - Power to award costs - Discretionary power - Obligation on council to come to High Court - Whether reasons for not awarding costs - Inappropriate and unnecessary examination of baby - Inappropriate and excessive prescribing of medication - Re The Solicitors Act 1954 [1960] IR 239; M v The Medical Council [1984] IR 485; CK v An Bord Altranais [1990] 2 IR 396 and Medical Council v O(PA) [2004] IESC 22, (Unrep, SC,1/4/2004) considered - Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (No 25), s 76 - Order granted and costs awarded to applicant (2010/692SP - Hedigan J - 1/2/2011) [2011] IEHC 34
Medical Council v Boateng
Facts Pursuant to section 76 of the Medical Practitioners Act, 2007, the Medical Council were obliged to apply to the High Court to affirm enquiry findings and sought in this case to confirm a decision of the council to censure the respondent. The respondent did not object to the application so the only issue to be determined was the question of costs. The Medical Council in their internal hearing do not award costs and in the legislation there are no provisions for costs.
Held by Hedigan J in acceding to the application by the Medical Council for costs for confirmation of the censure order applying Medical Council v PAO Supreme Court 1 April 2004 which said while the legislation is silent on costs it does not exclude the general law and rules as to costs.
Reporter: BD
Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered on the 1st day of February, 2011.
1. These proceedings arise out of an inquiry into allegations of misconduct made against the respondent which took place on the 19 th May, 2010. In its report the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Medical Council found that four allegations of professional misconduct were proven.
2. The inquiry arose out of the respondent's treatment of a three month old baby while working as a general practitioner in the United Kingdom on or around the 23 rd June, 2006. The respondent diagnosed that the baby was suffering from colic. The respondent carried out an inappropriate and unnecessary examination of the baby and then prescribed an inappropriate and excessive dose of medication for the baby. Arising from these circumstances the Medical Council decided on the 21 st July, 2010 to censure the respondent and to impose certain conditions on his continued registration on the Medical Register.
3. By virtue of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, the applicant is the public body charged with the registration and control of medical practitioners in the State. Under Part 6 of the Act, it is obliged to maintain a register of medical practitioners and Parts 7, 8 and 9 of the Act deal with complaints concerning the fitness to practise or alleged misconduct of registered medical practitioners. Parts 10 and 11 of the Act deal with education and training and the maintenance of professional competence among its registered medical practitioners. The statutory scheme provides for complaints to be first considered by a preliminary proceedings committee who make a decision as to whether there is a prima facie case for the conduct of an inquiry into a registered medical practitioner's alleged misconduct. Where they do decide so, the complaint is then referred to the Fitness to Practise Committee who conducts an inquiry into the allegations of professional misconduct. It is noteworthy that, although the Committee has many of the powers, rights and privileges vested in the High Court in relation to enforcing the attendance of witnesses, examining witnesses on oath and compelling the production or discovery of documents, there is no power to award costs to either party in respect of the inquiry.
4. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Fitness to Practise Committee makes a report to the full Medical Council under the provisions of s. 69 of the Act of 2007 setting out the nature of the complaint that resulted in the inquiry, the evidence presented to them, and their findings as to whether any allegation was proven. The Committee is also entitled to include such other matters relating to the registered medical practitioner as it thinks appropriate and as a general rule, the Fitness to Practise Committee makes recommendations to the full Medical Council as to the sanction which ought to be imposed upon a registered medical practitioner. The Committee itself makes no decision in relation to sanction.
5. Once a report has been made to the Council by the Fitness to Practise Committee, the matter comes before the full Council to decide on sanction. The practitioner in respect of whom the report has been prepared is entitled to attend before the full Council and make representations to the Council as to what sanctions are in fact appropriate. Normally, the Chief Executive Officer does not make representations in relation to sanction.
6. Under the provisions of s. 71 of the Act of...
To continue reading
Request your trial