Findings of professional misconduct against doctor quashed for unfair procedures

Judicial review – s. 20 (2) of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 – inquiry into the conduct of registered medical practitioners – suicide attempt by patient –alteration to the medical records – whether the facts amounted to professional misconduct – Fitness to Practise Committee found that the applicant was guilty of professional misconduct in respect of five of the allegations – sanction of admonishment recommended but sanction of ‘advice’ was imposed pursuant to s. 71 (a) of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 – expert witness’s evidence was exculpatory of the applicant in respect of each of the allegations raised against him – Committee did not accept the application for a direction – role of the legal assessor – decision was irrational and unreasonable within the meaning of that term in judicial review – no adequate reasons for the particular findings which it made in which the applicant was found guilty of professional misconduct – no obligation on the Committee to give detailed reasons or a discursive judgment on why it decided not to accept the views offered by the legal assessor – fair procedures – Committee must accept the consequences of the expert not ‘swearing up’ – cross-examination of Prof. Casey was predicated on the assumption that Dr. Barry would be giving the material expert evidence on misconduct – legal team were deprived of an opportunity to mount an altogether different form of cross-examination of complainant.