The High Court confirmed the cancellation of radiographer Kashimbu Musonda’s registration and barred her from applying for restoration to the register for 18 months from 25 March 2019.
In an ex tempore judgment, President of the High Court Mr Justice Kelly ruled on an application by the Health and Social Care Professionals Council under section 70 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005, as amended. That provision allows the court to confirm a Council finding where a registrant has not appealed within the required period, unless the court sees good reason not to do so.
The Council’s case followed a complaint by the radiography services manager at University Hospital Waterford. The complaint raised concerns about Ms Musonda’s competence and professional practice during her employment as a basic grade radiographer. It listed alleged failures including patient identification checks, image positioning and marking, radiation protection, and responding to direction and criticism.
A Council committee held a six-day inquiry. Ms Musonda attended three days and denied the allegations, describing them as fabricated by hospital radiography staff and alleging a conspiracy motivated by racism. The committee reported that it found no evidence of a conspiracy. It made multiple findings of poor professional performance and professional misconduct, including findings that raised patient and public safety concerns.
The committee recommended cancellation of her registration, citing serious deficiencies, risk to the public and what it considered a lack of insight into her conduct. The Radiographer Registration Board and the Council reached the same conclusion. The Council decided on 24 January 2019 that cancellation was appropriate and proportionate. Ms Musonda did not appeal.
Justice Kelly said there was no good reason to refuse the Council’s application and confirmed the cancellation. He also granted the requested 18-month prohibition on applying for restoration. The judgment states that any later application for registration would require Ms Musonda to satisfy the Council about her knowledge and skill; that assessment would be for the Council, not the court.
The judge also raised questions about the investigation that preceded Ms Musonda’s registration and about HSE recruitment procedures. Those comments were concerns expressed by the judge, not separate orders in the case. The court noted the Council’s intention to notify the relevant regulators in Zambia and Botswana of its order.