A surgeon suspended for almost a year from Cavan General Hospital has secured a High Court injunction restraining a ministerial-appointed committee from resuming its inquiry into his conduct.
A judge found yesterday that complaints by the surgeon about the conduct of the committee chairman were "proven".
Dr William Joyce had complained that Mr Andrew Bradley SC had "smelt of alcohol" during several committee hearings and had gone missing without explanation for three days. The inquiry into Dr Joyce's conduct, set up last February by the Minister for Health after two earlier committees were aborted, was due to resume on August 11th.
A spokeswoman for the Minister, Mr Martin, said he was "studying the ruling" and declined to comment on whether a fourth inquiry would be established.
While finding that Dr Joyce had not suffered any prejudice as a result of his complaints about Mr Bradley, Mr Justice O'Neill said: "I am satisfied that there has, justifiably, been a complete erosion of his confidence in the capacity of the chairman to bring the proceedings of the committee to a competent and thus a fair conclusion."
The judge also remarked that while it would be inappropriate for him to order the Minister to terminate Dr Joyce's suspension as the Minister had not yet addressed whether he should exercise his discretion in that regard, it was appropriate to observe that Dr Joyce had been suspended for almost a year without pay.
"This must be having a grossly detrimental effect on his livelihood and on his professional and personal reputation and must be a source of the utmost hardship to him and his family," Mr Justice O'Neill said. "I do not think that it was ever conceived that suspensions for the purpose for which this one was imposed would continue for that kind of length."
The proceedings arose from the suspensions last year of Dr Joyce and another surgeon, Dr Pawan K. Rajpal, as a result of difficulties within the surgical department at Cavan General Hospital.
Two committees appointed to inquire into Dr Joyce's conduct have not proceeded for various reasons. The third, chaired by Mr Bradley, began its inquiry in February, had 41 days of hearings and was due to resume on August 11th when, the court heard, another two weeks of hearings would conclude the inquiry.
However, on Wednesday, Mr Peter Finlay SC, for Dr Joyce, told Mr Justice O'Neill his client had lost confidence in the committee because of the "simply unacceptable" behaviour of Mr Bradley.
Mr James Connolly SC, for the Minister and the committee, said the application was premature and the other members of the committee had expressed confidence in Mr Bradley.
Mr Justice O'Neill said he was satisfied that the evidence on affidavit proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the complaints by Dr Joyce "are proven". From the evidence, he was satisfied there was, on many occasions during the committee hearings, a smell of alcohol from Mr Bradley detectable by Dr Joyce and that Mr Bradley had failed to turn up without notice three times.
He was also satisfied that on June 23rd last, Mr Bradley made an inappropriate approach to Dr Joyce, during which Dr Joyce got a strong smell of alcohol from Mr Bradley, in the restaurant of the Church Street premises where the inquiry is being conducted.
There was no evidence of Mr Bradley failing to listen or failing to pay adequate attention during the hearings or of any errors by Mr Bradley in his rulings during the hearings. There was also no evidence of any actual disadvantage or prejudice suffered thus far, apart from the obvious inconvenience of having to cancel and reassemble witnesses as a result of Mr Bradley's non-attendance on June 24th and June 25th.
He was satisfied Dr Joyce had not demonstrated that he had suffered any prejudice as a result of any error on the part of the chairman or the committee.
However, he said, he had no doubt that the matters of which Dr Joyce complained had given rise to "a very real apprehension" on Dr Joyce's part that Mr Bradley had throughout the hearings and continued to lack the capacity or competence to discharge his functions as chairman, both in the hearings and in arriving at a recommendation.
Although the chairman and the committee had not fallen into demonstrable error, it could be said that Dr Joyce had to endure a hearing before a committee, whose chairman lacked the capacity to discharge his function. Dr Joyce's constitutional right to fair procedures had been breached and if the committee was allowed to continue, there would be an ongoing breach of that right.
Because difficult legal issues would arise if he were just to grant an order restraining Mr Bradley from continuing to act as chairman of the committee and it proceeded without him, the judge said he would grant an injunction restraining the entire committee from resuming its hearings on August 11th.
