The High Court directed that section 47 reports prepared by Dr A.B. must not be given to Professor P.C., the court-appointed medical inspector, in a matrimonial nullity proceeding. Mr Justice Jordan said access would risk bringing third-party information into the medical inspection process in a way inconsistent with earlier court decisions.
The respondent had sought directions after Professor P.C. asked to see the reports before finalising her own report. She considered access desirable under best psychiatric practice. The judgment said she could complete her report without them and had indicated it would be available without delay.
The section 47 reports had been prepared under a court order for a specific purpose. The judgment described them as containing a factual narrative gathered by Dr A.B., along with her conclusions and recommendations. The question before the court was whether those reports could be provided to the medical inspector appointed on 13 December 2019.
Mr Justice Jordan considered section 47 of the Family Law Act 1995 and Order 70 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, as well as two earlier decisions: the Supreme Court ruling in P.McG. v. A.F. and the High Court ruling in F.P. v. S.P. He noted that the earlier cases were not about the precise question before him, but said their reasoning was relevant.
The judgment explained that those authorities recognised a distinction between medical records or data about a party and material that could lead an examiner to investigate facts supplied by third parties. The concern was that third-party information could amount to hearsay or draw the examiner into an inquiry beyond the reach of the trial judge.
The judge accepted that the request was for a report, rather than a pre-trial hearing. But he concluded that providing Dr A.B.’s reports would give Professor P.C. both the factual narrative presented to Dr A.B. and the opinions and recommendations she had formed from it. He said that would risk contaminating the medical inspection process and would not advance the inspector’s court-ordered function.
The direction does not prevent either party from calling evidence or cross-examining witnesses at the hearing. It addresses only whether the section 47 reports may be furnished to the medical inspector. The court granted the direction sought by the petitioner and refused Professor P.C. access to the reports. The judge said the primary basis was the reasoning in the Supreme Court and High Court authorities; his concern about using reports prepared for a specific court purpose in the proposed way was ancillary.