The Medical Council v A Medical Practitioner

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore
• Judgment Date: 26 May 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 245
• Docket Number: [2020/45 IA]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 26 May 2020

BETWEEN

THE MEDICAL COUNCIL

APPLICANT

AND

A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER

RESPONDENT

[2020] IEHC 245

Brian O'Moore J.

[2020/45 IA]

THE HIGH COURT

Professional misconduct – Cancellation of registration – Confirmation – Applicant seeking an order confirming its decision to cancel the respondent’s registration – Whether the hearing should take place in camera or in an anonymised fashion

Facts: The intended applicant is the Medical Council. The intended respondent is a medical doctor registered with the Council. Following an inquiry under Part 8 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Council found that certain allegations against the doctor were proven to the requisite standard, concluded that these findings amounted to professional misconduct and recommended that the doctor’s registration be cancelled. On foot of this recommendation, the Council decided to cancel the doctor’s registration and to prohibit the doctor from applying for the restoration of his registration for a period of ten years. On the expiry of the time period for appealing the decision of the Council, and in the absence of any such appeal by the doctor, the Council proposed applying pursuant to s. 76 of the 2007 Act for an order of the High Court confirming the decision of the Council. There was an application for directions that the s. 76 hearing take place either in camera or in an anonymised fashion.

Held by O’Moore J that if the s. 76 application was heard in public, there would probably be a material prejudice caused to the doctor in the event that he was subsequently to face trial; that would particularly be the case were the decision of the Council to be confirmed by the Court. O’Moore J found that the s. 76 application should be made otherwise than in public. He held that it was clear from the authorities opened to him that the Court should depart from a full hearing in public only to the extent necessary to avoid damage to the countervailing interests, in this case the privacy of the witnesses (inasmuch as this arose) and the compromising of any criminal prosecution. O’Moore J held that a suitably anonymised hearing could protect the identity of the witnesses and the hearing could proceed on the basis of no use of the doctor’s name (or his initials), no identification of persons involved in the alleged incidents which gave rise to the Inquiry, no identification of the premises or the town in which the alleged incidents occurred and no identification of the year in which the alleged incidents happened. However, O’Moore J held that it would be impossible to disguise the fact that the person involved was a medical practitioner; if he was not, the proceedings under the Medical Practitioners Act would make no sense.

O’Moore J held that he would make an order that the hearing of the intended application by the Council under s. 76 of the 2007 Act proceed in camera, and be listed accordingly. He held that he would reserve the costs of the ex parte application to the judge hearing the s. 76 application and grant liberty to apply in respect of that order (including his order as to costs) to the Council and to the doctor.

Application successful.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore delivered on the 26th day of May, 2020.

1 The Intended Applicant is the Medical Council (“the Council”). The Intended Respondent (‘the doctor’) is a medical doctor registered with the Council. Following an Inquiry under Part 8 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (“the Act of 2007”), the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Council found that certain allegations against the doctor were proven to the requisite standard, concluded that these findings amounted to professional misconduct and recommended that the doctor's registration be cancelled. On foot of this recommendation, the Council decided to cancel the doctor's registration and to prohibit the doctor from applying for the restoration of his registration for a period of ten years. On the expiry of the time period for appealing the decision of the Council, and in the absence of any such appeal by the doctor, the Council now proposes to apply pursuant to section 76 of the Act of 2007 for an Order of this Court confirming the decision of the Council to which I have referred.

2 The current application is for directions that the section 76 hearing take place either...