The High Court cancelled the Medical Council’s decision to censure an Army pathologist and impose conditions on her registration, finding that the alleged professional misconduct had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In a judgment delivered on 17 July 2007, Finnegan J considered the pathologist’s application under section 47(3) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1978. The Council had acted after its Fitness to Practise Committee found seven allegations proved and recommended sanctions. The Council censured her under section 48 and attached conditions under section 47, including reporting, audit, inspection and continuing education requirements.
The complaint concerned a biopsy taken from Dr Michael McCarthy’s right elbow in April 2000. He sought a written report and histology slides for a second opinion. The slides and original tissue blocks could not initially be located at the laboratory. The pathologist said she had prepared a report, obtained a second opinion, and arranged for the slides and blocks to be examined at St James’s Hospital.
The judge assessed each of the Committee’s findings against the evidence heard in court. He found the Council had not proved that the pathologist failed to provide a report within a reasonable time. The report was prepared on 8 May 2000, although a copy sent out bore incorrect 1999 dates. The judge considered it possible that a laboratory clerk had mistakenly printed and sent the wrong version.
The court also found that withholding the slides while seeking a pathologist to receive them was consistent with proper pathology practice. The slides and blocks had been sent to St James’s Hospital for further work and later returned; they had not gone missing. The remaining findings, including that the pathologist failed to act in Dr McCarthy’s best interests, were not established on the evidence.
The judge said the Council had imposed the conditions and censure on the basis of the Committee’s findings. As those facts were not established, that basis did not exist. He also found nothing in the evidence that would independently justify the conditions or censure. The court therefore cancelled the Council’s decision. The judgment records no further order.