A doctor has failed to stop a Medical Council inquiry into alleged professional misconduct relating to claims of sexual assault after a High Court judge ruled yesterday there was no substance to suggestions of bias by members of the inquiry.
The doctor, who cannot be identified to protect the anonymity of his alleged victims, a woman patient and a male person, had sought an order quashing an inquiry by the council's Fitness to Practise Committee which was due to take place last May.
The court heard the case concerned separate allegations of sexual assault against a woman patient and a second alleged victim who may only be referred to as "a male person". The doctor denies the allegations.
The committee held a meeting in June 2006 to consider the allegations but the doctor brought court proceedings to stop it.
Following that unsuccessful court challenge, a new inquiry was due to sit last May but the doctor took another High Court case arguing, among other things, that the two members of the original inquiry who had deemed there was a case to be met by the doctor could not be impartial members of the new committee.
The Medical Council argued there was no substance to these arguments and said they had been dealt with in the previous court proceedings.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan rejected claims of an alleged bias or that the committee had made its decision to hold an inquiry on either extraneous or impermissible grounds.
The judge said there was no substance "to any intended suggestion of bias" by the two committee members in question. There was provision in legislation dealing with professional misconduct that there necessarily has to be an overlap between members who decide whether there is a prima facie case against someone and members who conduct an inquiry.
The judge said no steps were taken by the doctor before the inquiry last May to ask the members involved to remove themselves from the committee and the alleged bias issue was not raised until the day of the hearing in May last. This was a "during the hearing" application of matters which the doctor clearly knew of and prepared for in advance, the judge said.
The judge refused an application to put a stay on the inquiry but he ordered that its decision should not be published until the outcome of any possible appeal to the Supreme Court. The judge awarded costs against the doctor.