The High Court has refused a request by the parents of a baby girl who died shortly after birth for statements hospital staff made to an internal risk management enquiry into her birth and death.
The parents, Cliona O’Keeffe and Alan Doran, are suing the Governor and Guardians of the Hospital for the Relief of the Poor Lying in Women Dublin, known as the Rotunda Hospital, over the medical treatment provided during the birth. Their application sought reports, memoranda and statements concerning the mother’s labour and delivery and the baby’s death, held by the hospital or people acting on its behalf as a result of the enquiry.
The parents argued that the statements were relevant and necessary to resolve the proceedings fairly and establish their negligence claim. The hospital said staff had been assured that their statements would remain confidential, and that confidentiality was needed to encourage candid participation in enquiries intended to improve future patient care.
In a judgment delivered on 26 July 2022, Mr Justice Twomey weighed the public interest in the administration of justice against the public interest in effective hospital safety enquiries. He said the enquiry was a clinician-led, private, ad hoc process without lawyers and had no power to compel staff to participate. Staff were assured of confidentiality, including by letter.
The judge distinguished the parents’ reliance on *Miggin v Health Service Executive*, which concerned a statutory Fitness to Practise Committee. He considered this case closer to decisions concerning ad hoc inquiries, where confidentiality may be needed to secure voluntary cooperation. He also distinguished *Gallagher v Stanley*: the hospital was not claiming legal professional privilege over the statements.
The court noted that the parents had received the final enquiry report, all medical records and notes relating to the care, and statements from five hospital staff that had been provided to the coroner in a separate case. The judgment said the statements sought could be relevant, but the question was whether they were necessary for the administration of justice in light of the confidentiality interest.
The court concluded that disclosure could discourage staff from taking part or speaking frankly in future risk management enquiries. It refused discovery of the statements made to the enquiry. The ruling concerns that discovery request; the judgment does not determine the underlying negligence claim.