The High Court refused a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist’s application for judicial review of an HSE investigation into his clinical practice, along with his requests to end his suspension and stop the investigation.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice O’Regan on 18 December 2019, concerned a preliminary report issued on 20 March 2018. The applicant had sought to have it quashed, arguing that the investigation was biased and unfair, including because clinical experts advised the panel without giving him a chance to test their views. He also raised concerns about missing files, the evidence summaries, witnesses not interviewed, delay and the use of NICE guidelines.
The HSE disputed the claims. It argued that the application was premature because the disciplinary process was continuing and the applicant could respond to the preliminary report and later raise concerns at a disciplinary hearing. The court noted that the process had not concluded with the preliminary report, and that the applicant would have further opportunities to make representations.
Justice O’Regan was not satisfied that any perceived error was irremediable or that the case met the threshold for court intervention in an ongoing process. The court found that the applicant had not shown that the investigation had gone so wrong that any eventual decision would almost certainly be legally unsustainable. It also rejected the claim that the panel’s preliminary conclusions meant submissions from the applicant would serve no purpose.
On bias, the judge noted that biographies of the clinical investigators had been provided before the applicant agreed to the terms of reference. She concluded that the applicant had not established bias and that it was not appropriate to raise the objections at that stage.
The judgment also addressed the applicant’s continued suspension. The judge said the HSE should have given a formal response to a proposed alternative arrangement for his work. However, she was not satisfied that the applicant had established a strong case for lifting the suspension while the process continued, given the concerns raised by the HSE. The court declined to interfere with the suspension.
Although the judge considered whether the application was outside the time limits in Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, she said she had addressed the issues without relying on those limits because the court, rather than the HSE, had raised the point.
The court refused the judicial review claim and the other reliefs sought. The judgment did not determine the eventual outcome of the disciplinary process.