The High Court dismissed a doctor’s judicial review application challenging the decision to proceed with a Medical Council inquiry into alleged professional misconduct. The court rejected arguments about the wording of an earlier committee decision, the committee’s membership and who had applied for the inquiry.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gilligan on 15 February 2008, concerned an inquiry under Part V of the Medical Practitioners Act 1978. The allegations included a number of alleged sexual assaults. The doctor denied them. The judgment records that gardaí investigated the allegations and that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the doctor in March 2006 that there would be no prosecution. The High Court proceeding did not determine the allegations themselves.
The doctor sought orders to quash the decision to proceed with the inquiry and an earlier decision treating applications under section 45 as applications by the Medical Council. He also sought to prevent the inquiry from going ahead.
One challenge focused on the phrase “inter alia” in the Fitness to Practise Committee’s June 2006 decision that there was a prima facie case for an inquiry. The doctor argued it could mean the committee had considered grounds outside those allowed by law. The court relied on an affidavit from the committee chair stating there were no other grounds and that the phrase was standard wording. It found no substance to this challenge.
The doctor also objected that two members who had taken part in the prima facie decision were sitting on the inquiry committee, and argued that they might need to be questioned about the earlier decision. The judge found no substance to the suggestion of bias, noting that the legislation contemplated overlap between committee members at the initial and inquiry stages. He also observed that objections had not been raised before the inquiry hearing began.
On the question of who applied, the doctor argued there was no valid application by an eligible person or body. The court found that the Medical Council had decided in September 2003 to apply for an inquiry, and that the records and notice of inquiry identified the Council as the applicant. It rejected this challenge too.
The judge also concluded that the challenges substantially repeated issues raised in earlier judicial review proceedings, in which leave had been refused and an appeal dismissed. Exercising his discretion, he dismissed the application for judicial review. The ruling did not decide whether the professional misconduct allegations were true.