The High Court has upheld CORU’s decisions to suspend social worker Lavinia O’Shea for nine months with conditions and for a separate 12-month period, rejecting her application to cancel the sanctions under section 69 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005.
In a written judgment of an ex tempore ruling delivered on 31 July 2019, Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh found no evidence of bias in CORU’s disciplinary process and concluded that the sanctions were proportionate. The court’s decision upheld the Council’s directions; it did not impose new sanctions.
The first inquiry concerned a complaint that O’Shea had failed, despite requests from her employer, to disclose the identities of two people she alleged were HSE or Tusla employees involved in abusing a child. The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) found one allegation proved as a matter of fact and found that the conduct amounted to professional misconduct. It did not make a finding on a second allegation, which it considered duplicative.
The second inquiry concerned a complaint that O’Shea had failed to cooperate with the investigation. The complaint followed her reports to the Medical Council about three consultant psychiatrists approached to assess whether she had a relevant medical disability. The court said the psychiatrists considered themselves unable to continue. The disability allegation was later dropped after an independent psychiatrist, reviewing records without examining O’Shea, concluded that the available evidence did not support a probable disability impairing her practice. The PCC found the non-cooperation allegation proved and amounting to professional misconduct.
The PCC and the Social Workers Registration Board recommended cancellation of O’Shea’s registration in both matters. CORU instead directed a nine-month suspension with conditions in the first matter, including retraining, and a 12-month suspension in the second.
Representing herself in the High Court, O’Shea argued that the process was flawed and biased, that important background had not been considered, and that she had been unable to obtain legal representation. The judge said many of her complaints concerned her employer and fell outside the scope of the statutory application. She found that O’Shea had been invited repeatedly to participate in the disciplinary hearings, that her correspondence was considered, and that she had not renewed a request for documents after being told she could apply again by showing they were relevant and necessary.
The judge also said the court could not provide a remedy for O’Shea’s inability to find a lawyer. Having reviewed the hearing records and the disciplinary findings, she concluded there was no basis to cancel or modify CORU’s directions and upheld them.