The High Court has ordered that the Medical Council’s intended application to confirm the cancellation of a medical practitioner’s registration be heard in camera, citing the possibility of criminal charges and the risk that a public hearing could prejudice a later trial.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore made the ruling on 26 May 2020. The application before him concerned the privacy arrangements for the future hearing under section 76 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, rather than the substance of that application.
The judgment says the Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee had found certain allegations proven to the required standard, concluded that they amounted to professional misconduct and recommended cancellation of the doctor’s registration. The Council then decided to cancel the registration and bar the doctor from applying for restoration for ten years. After the appeal period expired without an appeal by the doctor, the Council proposed to ask the High Court to confirm its decision.
Justice O’Moore said a public hearing could materially prejudice the doctor if he later faced trial, particularly if the Council’s decision were confirmed. Two witnesses had also asked for their evidence before the committee to be heard in private, but the judge said that concern was secondary to the potential effect on a prosecution.
The judge considered whether anonymisation could protect the witnesses while allowing a public hearing. He said that approach could avoid identifying the doctor, people involved in the alleged incidents, the premises or town, and the year. But he concluded that a public hearing with names withheld and allegations left undescribed would not provide meaningful public justice.
The application was made ex parte. The judgment records earlier difficulties serving the doctor by post, that he had not responded to emails, and that he had not participated in the inquiry. The judge granted the doctor liberty to apply to vary the privacy order, while making clear he was not aware of a reason to change it.
The order directs that the Council’s intended section 76 application proceed in camera and be listed accordingly. Costs of the ex parte application were reserved to the judge hearing the section 76 application. The judge also granted both the Council and the doctor liberty to apply concerning the order, including costs. He stressed that the ruling deals only with the listing and hearing of the intended application; the section 76 application itself remains to be heard.