High Court: CAMHS psychiatrist’s registration cancelled following imprisonment for sexual abuse of minor patient

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 237
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Barniville

Delivering an ex tempore judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David Barniville opined: “It is not conceivable that the Respondent could be permitted to remain on the register or that he could ever be permitted to practise again in this country (or elsewhere) given the depravity of his criminal conduct and his gross abuse of trust.”

Background

On 29 September 2023, the Medical Council received a complaint from a consultant psychiatrist which outlined that Community Health East Mental Health Services had been notified by a social worker for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) that a serious allegation had been made against the respondent psychiatrist.

The allegation related to the alleged sexual assault of a minor in the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) building in Clonskeagh, Dublin.

The social worker further informed Community Health East Mental Health Services that staff had been interviewed by Gardaí in relation to the alleged incident and that the respondent had been placed on administrative leave.

On 3 October 2023, a complaint pursuant to s.57 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (as amended) was made to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (PPC) of the Medical Council and on 20 October 2023, an application was successfully made to the High Court for the suspension of the respondent’s registration pending the conclusion of the relevant processes under the 2007 Act.

The Medical Council subsequently became aware that the respondent had appeared before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and had pleaded guilty to eight counts of the sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor.

Five of the counts of engaging in a sexual act with a child occurred between 23 May 2023 and 24 June 2023 when the child was 15, with one occurring on 8 September 2023 when the child had turned 16 years of age. The abuse was perpetrated in a car, in the respondent’s and victim’s homes, and at the respondent’s place of work.

The respondent was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Orla Crowe to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, backdated to when he was first brought into custody.

The Medical Council

On 21 October 2025, the Medical Council found that statutory criteria under the 2007 Act had been satisfied, that the respondent had permanently ceased to be fit to practise medicine, and that immediate action was required in order to protect the public, to uphold the professional standards of the medical profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

The Medical Council considered as aggravating circumstances the fact that the respondent had been approached by the family of the vulnerable young girl who had been suffering from a possible psychiatric condition, and that the respondent was known to and trusted by the family and had portrayed himself as a very religious man within his community, an impression that had been instilled in the minor.

Having determined that cancellation of the respondent’s registration was appropriate in the public interest, notwithstanding that hardship might be caused to the respondent and his family and that his rights to a good name and to earn a livelihood might be affected, the Medical Council applied to the High Court for the confirmation of its decision.

The High Court

Mr Justice Barniville, President of the High Court, noted that pursuant to s.76(3) of the 2007 Act, the High Court was required to confirm the decision of the Medical Council unless there was “good reason” not to do so.

The court was satisfied, as per an earlier ruling given at the outset of the hearing, that the hearing could proceed in the respondent’s absence where he had been properly served with notice of same and where he had elected not to attend the hearing.

Having considered the application, Mr Justice Barniville remarked: “This must be the most clear-cut and obvious decision I have ever had to make as a judge.”

The court continued: “There can be absolutely no doubt but that no sanction other than cancellation of his registration could possibly have been imposed on the Respondent in this case. This is such a truly appalling and shocking case, and it is hard to imagine a case more serious than this.”

In conclusion, Mr Justice Barniville emphasised: “It is not conceivable that the Respondent could be permitted to remain on the register or that he could ever be permitted to practise again in this country (or elsewhere) given the depravity of his criminal conduct and his gross abuse of trust.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the decision to cancel the respondent’s registration.

The Medical Council v Amirul Mohd Yunos [2026] IEHC 237