The High Court has refused the Medical Council’s application to suspend a doctor from the medical register while serious allegations against him are investigated, instead deciding that strict undertakings and conditions should govern his practice in the meantime.
The application under section 60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 concerned allegations by a complainant, anonymised in the judgment as Ms A. She alleged that the doctor raped her at her home on 15 December 2022 and attempted to rape her on 30 and 31 December. She also alleged forced abortions, forced cautery and irregularities involving medical cards, prescriptions, disability claims and tax. The doctor denied the allegations.
In a judgment delivered on 11 October 2023, Mr Justice Micheál P O’Higgins stressed that the interim application did not determine the underlying complaint. The court did not hear the protagonists’ evidence on the allegations, resolve conflicts or make findings of fact. The judge said the rape and attempted rape allegations remained contested and that their substance would require a full hearing.
The Council argued that medical records and concessions in the doctor’s later affidavit undermined his earlier accounts about the relationship, his treatment of the complainant and his knowledge of her pregnancies. The judge said he had significant concerns about the doctor’s position on those matters. He also noted the seriousness of the allegations and that, if proven, they were likely to result in erasure from the register. Those considerations favoured suspension.
But the judge described the case as marginal and weighed the proposed suspension against its effects on the doctor’s livelihood and reputation. No criminal charges had been brought, the doctor had not been arrested or questioned, and the court had limited information about the Garda investigation. The judge also considered that a suspension could last years, that the doctor had complied with earlier undertakings, and that the allegations did not concern clinical incompetence or immediate danger of the kind raised by recurring medical misadventure. The doctor’s employer had provided a positive professional reference.
The court therefore declined to make the requested interim suspension order. It decided that strict undertakings and conditions should be put in place, with liberty for the parties to apply. The judgment set out proposed conditions, including limiting practice to six hours a week, requiring a chaperone when examining female patients, prohibiting contact with the complainant and her family or friends, and requiring cooperation with the Medical Council. The court said it would hear further submissions to finalise the order and the undertakings. The judgment does not record the final terms of that order.