A 74-year-old doctor has launched High Court proceedings to prevent the Medical Council from holding an inquiry into allegations of professional misconduct against him arising from complaints made by a number of his former patients, all boys or young men. The council contends the proposed inquiry is in the public interest.
Michael Shine, a consultant surgeon, wants an order restraining the council's Fitness to Practise Committee inquiring into allegations of professional misconduct arising from complaints of indecent assault made against him by a number of males, aged between 10 and 20 years, while they were being examined at his consulting rooms in Drogheda and at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda.
The alleged events mainly took place during the early 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Most of the men are now aged in their late-30s and early-40s. Mr Shine was acquitted by a jury on charges relating to several males in 2003.
Esmonde Keane SC, for Mr Shine, said his client had worked as a surgeon in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. There had been a number of complaints alleging indecent assault mainly during the mid-1990s.
Criminal summonses were served on Mr Shine in relation to alleged incidents of indecent assault under Section 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act. In October 2003, a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court acquitted Mr Shine on charges in relation to a number of boys.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had not yet given directions as to how a number of outstanding complaints should be dealt with, the court heard. Five of the cases had been left in "utter abeyance" by the DPP, Mr Keane said. Mr Shine had retired from practice and does not plan to practise again, counsel said. The court was told the Medical Council had originally planned to hold an inquiry after complaints were made against him in 1996 but this was adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against him.
In 2004, his solicitor wrote to the Medical Council and asked for the inquiry to be dismissed on the grounds of delay in proceeding with it. However, the Fitness to Practise Committee intended to proceed. Mr Keane said the delay had caused "clear prejudice" to Mr Shine in defending himself. Mr Shine could not remember treating the patients and several medical records could not be found.
Opposing the application, Eoin McCullough SC, for the Medical Council, rejected the argument that the lapse of time had prejudiced Mr Shine. No specific prejudice was referred to and the prejudice claimed was "a general presumption", counsel argued.
After Mr Shine's acquittal in 2004, a hearing by the Fitness to Practise Committee was fixed for November 2004. However, Mr Shine initiated his legal challenge before that date and the hearing was not able to proceed.
Replying to Mr Justice Diarmuid O'Donovan, counsel agreed that the Medical Council's hearing was now "a matter of credibility". It was a question of whether Mr Shine or the complainants were to be believed.
While the claims of inappropriate examinations and remarks may not be a crime, the council had decided to act as they might constitute misconduct, Mr McCullough said. The inquiry was in the public interest.
After any hearing into alleged misconduct takes place, the Fitness to Practise Committee would report to the Medical Council and it was the council which would make decisions on imposing any sanctions.
There was significant public interest in this type of procedure, counsel said. Investigations of alleged misconduct must be held "if the public is to have confidence in the medical profession", while doctors themselves must know that, if they were found guilty of engaging in certain acts "there will be sanctions".
The hearing continues today.