The High Court has quashed a South Eastern Health Board decision to place a consultant psychiatrist at St Senan’s Hospital on administrative leave with pay, finding that the process did not meet fair hearing requirements.
In a judgment delivered on 5 September 2005, Mr Justice Macken ruled that the Board had not adequately explained the basis for the proposed suspension and investigation, or given the psychiatrist a proper opportunity to respond. The court said it would hear the parties on the precise form of the order and any subsidiary or consequential orders.
The psychiatrist, who held the posts of Consultant Chief Psychiatrist and Resident Officer at the hospital, challenged the Board’s 8 April 2003 decision by judicial review. The dispute followed an incident on 3 January 2003 involving a consultant colleague. The psychiatrist alleged that the colleague verbally abused, threatened and physically manhandled him. An investigation team found the allegations had not been established. The Board’s chief executive then said the psychiatrist’s complaint was unfounded and that his conduct presented an immediate and serious risk to staff, and required him to take administrative leave with pay.
The Board argued that the leave was justified by safety concerns and by complaints from consultant colleagues. It said the psychiatrist had been given an opportunity to respond and that the leave allowed an investigation to proceed. The psychiatrist argued that he had not been told clearly what conduct was alleged against him or why his complaint was considered unfounded.
The judge found that, whether the Board was considering action following the January incident investigation, complaints from colleagues, or both, the psychiatrist was entitled to know the substance and basis of the allegations and the reasons for the proposed suspension. The letters and correspondence had not supplied that information with sufficient clarity.
The judgment also addressed the contract’s disciplinary procedures. It held that the Board could use the contract’s administrative leave provision where it believed, on reasonable grounds, that staff or patient safety was threatened. But in the circumstances of this case, the only investigation procedure provided by the contract for alleged misconduct or failure to comply with appointment terms was the procedure requiring written reasons and an opportunity to make representations.
The court rejected the claim that the chief executive’s alleged bias made any investigation incapable of being fair. It did not decide whether the complaints against the psychiatrist were justified. It also said it had not read affidavits and exhibits concerning a separate, ongoing investigation begun in 2002, to avoid influencing that process. The judge expressed the view that the earlier investigation should be concluded as soon as possible.