The High Court refused John White’s application for judicial review of a tribunal decision to hear evidence about his medical condition in public. Mr Justice Finnegan delivered judgment on 21 March 2007, finding that the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and had responded proportionately to his concerns.
The Tribunal of Inquiry into Complaints Concerning Some Gardaí of the Donegal Division was established to investigate matters of urgent public importance. White was one of the gardaí against whom complaints had been made.
White was due to give evidence to the tribunal on 18 September 2006. His solicitor told the tribunal that he was receiving medical treatment and was medically unfit to attend, and said a medical report would be provided. The tribunal was not satisfied that White was incapable of attending and required his consultant psychiatrist, Dr Lewis O’Carroll, to give evidence about his condition.
At a hearing the following day, White’s counsel asked for the medical evidence to be heard in private, citing intimate details of his mental health and his rights to privacy and bodily integrity. The tribunal declined to hold a closed hearing. It asked media representatives not to publish the evidence and limited those permitted to attend to the tribunal’s legal team, a complainant whose complaint against White was under inquiry, and members of her family. The tribunal also refused an adjournment sought to allow White’s solicitor to take further instructions.
Dr O’Carroll told the tribunal that White had withdrawn his consent to the doctor giving evidence unless the hearing was closed to the public, with only the legal teams present. The tribunal then made an order under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1997. The judgment does not specify the order’s terms.
The High Court said tribunal proceedings should generally be public, subject to the statutory power to sit otherwise in public-interest circumstances connected with the subject matter or nature of the evidence. It accepted that disclosure of medical details could cause embarrassment or worsen a condition, but concluded that the public interest in the inquiry’s proceedings being public outweighed White’s confidentiality interests. The judge also considered that public hearings could support confidence in the tribunal’s findings and recommendations.
The court held that the tribunal had balanced the relevant interests, acted within its jurisdiction and complied with the governing legislation. It concluded that White was not entitled to the reliefs he sought. The judgment does not state that the medical evidence was ultimately heard or set out any later decision about his evidence to the tribunal.