Ed Madden, BL, seems at a current Excessive Courtroom case by which the household of a younger girl who died in hospital introduced an software for depart to judicially evaluate a choice of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Medical Council
In n December 2024, the Excessive Courtroom delivered its ruling on an software for depart to judicially evaluate a choice of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (‘PPC’) of the Medical Council.
When the case got here on for listening to, the Courtroom was advised of the tragic background to the case. The loss of life of a younger girl in hospital led to an investigation into the circumstances of her loss of life. Her household, who had been the Candidates within the case, had severe reservations concerning the occasions surrounding her loss of life, and had raised ‘substantial points concerning the equity of the following investigation into her medical care’.
The principal grounds for the applying had been in respect of the procedures adopted by the PPC in reaching a choice relating to the alleged negligence of a treating physician on the evening of the younger girl’s loss of life.
The Candidates claimed that the Medical Council and the PPC (the Respondents within the case) didn’t settle for submissions from them in respect of alleged failures of care, and didn’t take into account a medical report ready by an professional retained on their behalf.
There was additionally an allegation of goal bias in respect of 1 member of the PPC who had served with the treating physician in a special context for a ample time frame ‘to lift considerations concerning the concern of goal bias in respect of their skilled relationship’.
When the Respondents had been placed on discover of the applying, they met the applying by conceding that particular orders in keeping with the assertion of grounds ready on behalf of the Candidates may very well be made: they conceded the purpose in respect of the target bias concern, and agreed that the matter may very well be remitted to a in a different way constituted PPC; they confirmed in correspondence that submissions may very well be made on behalf of the Candidates to that Committee.
The letter providing this compromise particularly famous that the supply included the making of submissions in respect of the medical professional report, which the household had argued was not thought of within the impugned determination.
The Candidates objected to the Respondents’ proposal and requested that the problem be listed for listening to within the Excessive Courtroom.
It was submitted that this was a case by which the household had considerations concerning the Respondents’ investigation and procedures and that they wished a Excessive Courtroom listening to to find out the issues raised. It was argued that there have been ‘stay points in respect of the parameters of the PPC listening to and the household’s rights’.
Giving her judgment within the case, Ms Justice Gearty stated that whereas there may need been debatable grounds for the current software when it was first made, there was no authority to help the proposition that if one get together considerably concedes the case, the Courtroom is nonetheless required to embark on a listening to on the premise that the events are entitled to know the Courtroom’s view.
Whereas she was ‘sympathetic’ to the current Candidates and understood why their directions had been to hunt a full Excessive Courtroom listening to, this represented a misguided view as to what may very well be achieved. As a matter of regulation, essentially the most substantial a part of any aid that they might receive within the Excessive Courtroom was now being supplied to them within the type of a full rehearing earlier than a in a different way constituted PPC.
Most importantly, that they had now been reassured that the professional medical report, which opened the query of potential negligence, can be thought of by that newly constituted PPC. Any objection to this matter being remitted to a newly constituted PPC, may solely be based mostly on a misunderstanding of the function of the courts.
The best aid {that a} choose within the case may supply to the events was to remit the case to the decision-maker. The PPC is the physique that may finally assess the case, whether or not or not there was a Excessive Courtroom listening to. Any distrust on the Candidates’ half couldn’t be addressed by eradicating the choice from a physique that’s, underneath regulation, charged with making the choice. Have been there to be any lack of truthful procedures within the new determination, this may be a matter for the Candidates to contemplate at the moment.
The Courtroom granted certiorari quashing the unique determination of the PPC on the premise conceded by the Respondents and remitted the case for re-hearing earlier than a newly constituted PPC. 
Reference: [2024] IEHC 734
