The High Court has refused an independent midwife’s application to quash a decision allowing a fitness-to-practise inquiry to continue with its chairperson in place. The court found that the chairperson’s professional relationship with an expert witness did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of objective bias.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 23 October 2009, concerned an inquiry by An Bord Altranais into allegations of professional misconduct against Ann O’Ceallaigh. The allegations related to her work as a domiciliary midwife for a named patient between November 2006 and 20 April 2007. They were allegations before the inquiry, not findings made in this judicial review.
The inquiry began on 5 May 2009. Its chair, Pauline Treanor, was Group General Manager of the Rotunda Hospital. Fiona Hanrahan, an assistant director of midwifery at the hospital, was called by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board to give expert evidence. Hanrahan was allowed to sit through evidence before giving her own testimony.
O’Ceallaigh’s counsel argued that the professional and hierarchical connection between Treanor and Hanrahan created an appearance of bias. The applicant also challenged the process by which the inquiry committee rejected the objection, including Treanor’s absence while the other four members decided it. The Board’s Chief Executive Officer, appearing as notice party, argued that the relationship was not sufficiently close or connected to the inquiry to establish bias, and that the committee’s process was lawful.
The court applied the objective test: whether a reasonable, well-informed observer would apprehend that the applicant would not receive a fair and impartial hearing. It said a professional relationship alone was not enough; there had to be a cogent connection between that relationship and the issues before the decision-maker.
The judge noted that Treanor was not Hanrahan’s line manager, they did not attend regular committee meetings together, and Hanrahan had no stake in the inquiry’s outcome. The court also observed that Ireland had a small pool of experts in domiciliary midwifery, making some professional familiarity likely. It found no additional factor suggesting Treanor would favour Hanrahan’s evidence.
The court concluded that O’Ceallaigh had not shown a reasonable apprehension of objective bias. It considered Treanor’s recusal from the committee’s decision on the bias objection consistent with fair procedures and natural justice. Because the bias claim failed, the judge said it was unnecessary to determine the other issues raised. The court refused the relief sought; the judgment did not decide whether the misconduct allegations were proved.