The High Court refused a psychiatrist’s application to stop the Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee proceeding with allegations of professional misconduct and poor professional performance beyond a meeting with a former patient at a restaurant in 2012.
The judicial review challenged the committee’s decision on 15 September 2017 to proceed with the allegations in a notice of inquiry. The applicant, identified in the judgment as B.M., argued that the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (PPC) could send forward only the restaurant meeting because an independent expert had identified it as the sole serious failing. He also argued that the inquiry notice was too broad.
The complaint had been made to the Medical Council on 23 October 2014 by a former patient referred to B.M. for treatment in or about 2006. It listed 21 matters and included text messages, gifts and cards. The PPC obtained a report from consultant psychiatrist Dr. Giles Constable, dated 5 July 2016. He identified four failings: inadequate clinical notes, insufficient supervision, erosion of professional boundaries and agreeing to meet the patient at a restaurant. He regarded the restaurant meeting as a serious failing and said the other two failings contributed to the erosion of boundaries.
The PPC referred the complaint to the Fitness to Practise Committee under section 63 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, finding a prima facie case warranting further action and that the matter was sufficiently serious. The Medical Council’s chief executive then obtained a separate opinion from consultant psychiatrist Dr. Cian Denihan. A notice of intention to hold an inquiry, served on 11 August 2017, alleged inadequate professional boundaries and clinical notes during 2010, 2011 and/or 2012. The boundaries allegation included, but was not limited to, arranging or agreeing to meet the patient at a restaurant around 24 July 2012.
Mr Justice Meenan held that the PPC’s role was to assess complaints at an initial stage and decide whether serious matters warranted further action. The PPC was not confined to the expert report when deciding whether to refer a complaint. Allegations were formulated later by the chief executive from the complaint, and the Fitness to Practise Committee would determine those allegations. Any findings of professional misconduct or poor professional performance could be made only in respect of allegations supported by the later report from Dr. Denihan, the judge said.
The court refused all reliefs sought. It did not determine whether the allegations were proved; the challenged decision was to allow the inquiry to proceed on the allegations in the notice.