The High Court has confirmed the Medical Council’s decision to censure a doctor and attach conditions to his registration, following an ex parte application under section 76(3) of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.
The Council sought confirmation after the doctor did not appeal its decision. At an earlier hearing on 7 November 2016, Mr Justice Kelly raised concerns about whether the recommended sanction was sufficient. The Council then provided written and oral submissions and an affidavit from its president, Professor Alfred Edward Wood.
The doctor admitted three factual allegations before the Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee and accepted that they amounted to professional misconduct. They concerned answers of “No” to questions about registration refusals in a 2014 registration application and a 2015 annual retention application, and failure to notify the Council within 30 days that the UK General Medical Council had refused his registration application in April 2015.
The Committee recommended censure and a condition requiring the doctor to complete a recognised ethics course. The Council unanimously accepted that recommendation. Its president told the court that the Council considered the misconduct serious, but also considered the doctor’s admissions, his early career stage, evidence that there were no concerns about his ability to practise safely, and mitigation presented at the inquiry. The proposed condition would require the doctor to identify a course addressing the conduct to the Council’s satisfaction; the Council said a tailored course could be arranged if necessary.
The judgment also recounts concerns arising from the UK regulator’s separate consideration of the doctor’s applications, including reported discrepancies in English-language test results and concerns about his conduct in seeking employment. Those matters were not the allegations being determined in the Irish inquiry. The legal advice to the Committee was to focus on the admitted failures to disclose information to the Medical Council, rather than to investigate the underlying UK proceedings.
Mr Justice Kelly held that section 76(3) did not make the High Court an appeal tribunal on the merits. The court could decline confirmation for good reason, including procedural impropriety, a breach of natural or constitutional justice, or a decision so unreasonable that intervention was warranted. He found no procedural impropriety or justice breach and concluded the Council’s decision was not unreasonable in that sense.
The court therefore confirmed the Council’s decision to censure the doctor and attach the recommended conditions to his registration. The judgment records the court’s emphasis on the doctor’s engagement with registration authorities in Ireland, as well as the Committee’s and expert’s views and the Council’s unanimous decision.