The High Court has ordered that further hearings in the Medical Council’s proceedings against doctor Syed Waqas Ali Bukhari be held in public and allowed Mediahuis Ireland Limited and others to name him. The ruling concerns publicity and identification; it did not decide the Council’s still-live application to suspend his registration.
The Council brought its application under section 60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 in November 2021. In July 2022, the court accepted undertakings from Dr Bukhari instead of making the suspension order sought by the Council. The judge said then that the balance in favour of accepting them was “just about and barely” met, and warned that a breach would almost inevitably lead to suspension.
Mediahuis later applied to have the remaining section 60 proceedings heard publicly and to identify the doctor. The Council took a neutral position. Dr Bukhari opposed the application, citing his rights to reputation and livelihood and saying further publicity would harm his prospects of employment. He said a locum position due to begin in September 2022 was cancelled after a Sunday World article was published. The judge noted that Dr Bukhari accepted that article had caused him to lose the position.
The court considered that the statutory default was a private hearing, but found Mediahuis had discharged its burden to justify departing from it. The judge pointed to earlier public reporting about Dr Bukhari’s criminal convictions and sentences, which he had appealed, as well as a Council register entry stating that he had provided “health-related voluntary undertakings to the High Court”. The judge also considered Dr Bukhari’s comment to a reporter that he had not been suspended, finding it misleading because the Council had sought suspension and the court had refrained from ordering it only after accepting undertakings.
The judge rejected arguments that Mediahuis had applied too late or that allowing identification breached fair procedures. The section 60 case remained ongoing: the July decision had required sworn undertakings and further information for the Council’s Health Committee, and the application had not been finally determined.
The orders direct that further hearings be conducted in public and permit Mediahuis and others to identify Dr Bukhari. The judge said the July judgment would be reissued naming him, while continuing to withhold the names of people who provided references and information about an aspect of his family circumstances. The source judgment does not record a final decision on the Council’s suspension application.