A doctor acquitted by a jury of sexually assaulting two women patients at Dublin's Mater Hospital yesterday failed in his High Court application to prevent the Medical Council holding an inquiry into allegations of professional misconduct against him.
However, Mr Justice ╙ Caoimh said it would be unfair for the council to enter into a hearing to decide whether Dr Aftab Ahmed, of Stackallen, Slane, Co Meath, was guilty of sexually or indecently assaulting two women. These were charges of which Dr Ahmad was acquitted by a jury at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in 1999.
Dr Ahmed, a Pakistani citizen, had argued the council's Fitness to Practice Committee was seeking to investigate those same sexual assault charges of which he had already been acquitted.
He said he qualified as a medical doctor in Pakistan in 1993 and secured a post in the Mater Hospital where, on July 28th, 1997, he was required to conduct pre-operative examinations on a number of patients due for surgery.
He said he conducted those examinations in accordance with what he understood to be the procedures, not having received any formal instructions from the hospital.
He believed the examinations were proper and necessary.
Two female patients he examined made allegations to hospital staff and to garda∅ that he had assaulted them.
He denied those allegations. He was charged with the offences in August 1997 and held in custody for 18 months until his trial in February 1999.
Following his acquittal and release, he had sought to continue his medical practice but required registration from the council. It had informed him it had referred his application to its Fitness to Practice Committee on a complaint of professional misconduct against him.
In March 2000, Dr Ahmed successfully applied to the High Court for an order restraining the Fitness to Practice Committee from holding an inquiry pending a full hearing of his complaints.
His counsel claimed that as Dr Ahmed had been acquitted by a jury, it would be oppressive and unfair if he was once more subjected to what was in effect a retrial before the Fitness to Practice Committee.
The restraining order was granted pending the outcome of Dr Ahmed's judicial review proceedings.
Giving judgment on those proceedings yesterday, Mr Justice ╙ Caoimh said the proceedings to be heard by the Fitness to Practice Committee were not for alleged offences against the law.
He was satisfied the proceedings were not primarily punitive but were to ensure that no person, unfit because of their conduct, should be allowed to continue to practice.
The rule of double jeopardy did not apply in this case.
While it would be unfair for the council inquiry to enter into a hearing to determine whether Dr Ahmed was guilty of the assaults of which he was acquitted in the Circuit Criminal Court, that was not to say the Fitness to Practice Committee should not hear all of the evidence in assessing whether the doctor's conduct established, in the light of the facts, that he was a person guilty of inappropriate behaviour.