The High Court cancelled a Medical Council decision that found a doctor guilty of professional misconduct, ruling that the 14-year delay in making the complaint and the loss of relevant records would make further proceedings unfair.
The complaint concerned an alleged inappropriate internal examination during a visit to the doctor’s surgery in or around January 1996. It was made to the Medical Council in 2010. The Council’s decision followed a Fitness to Practise Committee report dated 22 December 2010 and was made on 19 January 2011.
The doctor appealed under section 75 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007. The court considered, as a preliminary issue, whether the delay and its prejudicial effects allowed a fair hearing. The parties agreed that evidence given to the committee could be used to decide that issue. The judgment does not determine whether the allegations were proved on their merits.
Kearns P. said the complainant had described difficulties in the intervening years, including time spent in the United States, health problems and family circumstances. The judge noted that no psychiatric or psychological evidence had been presented to support an inability to complain earlier. He also noted there was no evidence that the doctor had been in a position of trust or authority over the complainant.
The court accepted that the doctor had no recollection of the patient and no records from which to check the circumstances of the visit or any advice he may have given. The judgment records evidence that he had 1,500 to 2,000 patients at the time, and that the records had not been kept beyond a certain period. The judge said the missing records created obvious difficulties and prejudice, and that the rights and wrongs of the matter had been lost in the passage of time.
The court allowed the appeal and cancelled the Council’s 19 January 2011 decision. It did not make findings on the appeal’s other grounds, which included whether the allegations had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and objections concerning suspension and Council procedure. Kearns P. also requested that the doctor’s name and the parish or locality of his practice not be published.