The High Court has rejected Samuel Van Eeden’s bid to prevent a Medical Council fitness-to-practise inquiry, finding that the issues before the inquiry were not decided in his earlier criminal case.
Mr Justice Twomey said the proceedings were, in substance, a challenge to an administrative decision and were judicial-review in nature. Dr Van Eeden had brought them by plenary summons seeking declarations about the proposed inquiry.
The doctor was acquitted in the District Court in October 2014 of 16 charges relating to procuring and importing medicinal products without the relevant authorisations. The Medical Council’s proposed inquiry includes allegations that he imported lidocaine, administered it to patients, wrote a prescription without identifying the patient, and intended to supply or administer other medicines. Those are allegations for the inquiry; the High Court did not determine whether they were true.
Dr Van Eeden argued that the inquiry concerned matters covered by his acquittal and should therefore be barred by res judicata. The judge found no overlap between the criminal charges and the matters to be examined by the Fitness to Practise Committee. Similar products or facts did not make the issues identical. The court also rejected his claims that existing law permitting a disciplinary inquiry after a criminal acquittal was erroneous, and that the statutory disciplinary process breached constitutional provisions on the administration of justice or equality.
On equality, the judge said doctors could be held to higher professional standards than workers outside regulated professions because of the trust placed in doctors and the potential harm to patients. He concluded that the public interest supported allowing the Council to put the allegations to Dr Van Eeden.
The court also accepted the Medical Council’s argument that the proceedings were an abuse of process. It found that the claims could have been raised in Dr Van Eeden’s 2017 judicial-review proceedings and that the later case had further delayed the inquiry. The court concluded that the plenary proceedings should be struck out and that none of the declarations sought should be granted.
The judgment did not decide the allegations against Dr Van Eeden or impose a professional sanction. For final orders, the court asked the parties to try to agree outstanding matters. If needed, the case was to be listed for mention on 13 October 2021.