The High Court has ruled that the Medical Council’s intended application to confirm a sanction against an anonymised doctor should be heard in public, with restrictions to protect the doctor’s and patients’ identities. It also said the Council was authorised to advise the doctor’s patients about the case, while leaving the decision whether and how to do so to the Council.
The ruling concerns a preliminary application made ahead of proceedings under section 76 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007. It does not decide that intended application or confirm the sanction.
The Fitness to Practise Committee investigated the doctor and made adverse findings. Of 12 allegations, the doctor admitted all but one; no evidence was offered on the remaining allegation. The committee found failures to meet expected competence standards, serious professional misconduct and disgraceful or dishonourable conduct. It also found that the doctor suffered from a relevant medical disability.
The judgment said the misconduct occurred over five years while the doctor was experiencing opioid addiction, which had originated in pain relief prescribed for earlier injuries. The doctor had prescribed opioids unnecessarily to patients, administered only part of the dispensed medication to them and used the remainder himself. The allegations also concerned taking drugs from practice stock or samples, self-administering opioids and practising while under their influence.
The committee recommended censure and conditions on the doctor’s registration. The Council’s chief executive argued for cancellation, but the Council chose censure and conditional registration. The Council said it considered cancellation or suspension unwarranted in the exceptional circumstances, including the doctor’s admissions, recovery and rehabilitation. It decided against informing the public or publishing committee material under section 85, but asked the court how patients might be told.
President of the High Court Mr Justice Kelly said open justice was a fundamental constitutional principle and that a private hearing was not necessary to protect those involved. He directed that the section 76 hearing proceed in public, prohibited publication or broadcast of anything that would or might identify the doctor or patients, and directed that their names not be used. The case could proceed without the doctor’s name in its title or the Legal Diary; initials used in the title must not be the doctor’s own.
On the Council’s separate request, the judge said section 85 allowed it to advise a limited group of the public, including patients who may have been adversely affected. The Council retains discretion over whether to give that advice, what material to share and how to communicate it sensitively. The judge did not decide whether the court could give such guidance without an invitation from the Council.