Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Appropriate for application to suspend doctor be heard in public
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court in application to suspend registration of a doctor grants orders sought by the media to have the application heard in public and to allow for the identification of the doctor on the grounds that in the specific circumstances of the case it was appropriate to do so
Regulation of medical practitioners – application for hearing to be held in public – order permitting the naming and identification of the respondent doctor – Medical Council applied to have the doctor suspended – undertakings – breach of undertakings – convicted of driving without a license and without insurance - convicted by the District Court of the offence of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance – 5 months imprisonment – appealing sentence – July application - further undertakings - undertakings to be given on oath - directed the respondent to provide the information requested of him by the Council’s Health Committee as a matter of urgency – review hearing - journalist applied to attend remotely - Correspondence before the Application – application – publication of articles - fact specific assessment and will turn on the particular facts of the case - competing Constitutional and, potentially, Convention rights and interests involved which must be weighed in the balance – satisfied that it is appropriate to hear the application in public - public hearing or identification of the respondent would not have the damaging effect contended for by the respondent in circumstances where, on any view, significant damage will already have occurred as a result of the publication of the articles - already been a considerable amount of publicity about the respondent’s conduct and about the offences to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced in open court and which have been appealed by him to the Circuit Court - pointless exercise and would not effectively serve to protect any of the constitutional rights (or indeed the Convention rights) relied on by the respondent from unjust attack if Court were to decide to continue to hear the s. 60 application in private and to maintain anonymity - respondent decided to comment to the Sunday World reporter that he had not been suspended – timing of the application – ordered that the application be heard in public and allowing the identification of the doctor –
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
