About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 542
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Barniville

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David Barniville in making the orders sought was satisfied that “the need the ensure the public is protected must prevail over the other factors to be included in the balance, including those constitutional rights which I have mentioned and the presumption of innocence which the doctor does clearly enjoy”.

Background

The respondent doctor registered as a medical practitioner in Ireland in February 2023, but continued to reside and practise medicine in the United Kingdom. 

On his 2024 Annual Retention Application Form (ARAF) relating to his Irish registration, the doctor answered in the negative questions concerning whether he was aware of any criminal investigations against him in this jurisdiction or another jurisdiction, notwithstanding that he had been arrested in January 2024 in the UK on suspicion of distribution of indecent images of children and no longer held a licence to practise medicine there since early 2025 in light of the serious charges brought against him.

From July 2024, the UK General Medical Council provided information concerning the doctor’s circumstances to the Irish Medical Council, and following a meeting in September 2025, the Medical Council applied to the High Court for inter alia orders pursuant to s.60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 seeking to suspend the respondent doctor’s registration pending the taking of steps or further steps under the Act and prohibiting the doctor from practising medicine in this jurisdiction until such steps are taken.

In its reasoning for its decision to bring the application, the Medical Council cited concerns including the high risk of prospective harm to the public posed by the doctor should he come to Ireland to practise medicine, and the doctor’s failure to disclose the existence of criminal proceedings and conditions placed upon his UK registration in his 2024 ARAF.

The High Court

Mr Justice Barniville noted that pursuant to s.60 of the Act, the court would make orders where satisfied that they are necessary to protect the public.

The High Court highlighted the case of Dental Council v A Dentist [2024] IEHC 731 as summarising the applicable legal principles to applications such as that before it, and set out the court’s “very wide discretion” and “broad jurisdiction” in terms of the orders that it can make and the court’s primary task of assessing whether it is in the public interest that such orders be made in line with O’Ceallaigh v. An Bord Altranais [2000] 4 IR 54.

Mr Justice Barniville also explained that both the court and the Medical Council must be satisfied that the complaint concerns serious conduct, that the case is strong as against the practitioner and that in the event of an adverse finding in fitness to practise proceedings, the appropriate sanction would be to strike off the practitioner either permanently or for a defined period.

The court further considered the regard to be had to the practitioner’s constitutional rights to their good name, reputation and to earn a livelihood, whether a suspension order could be avoided by the giving of appropriate undertakings, and the balancing exercise to be conducted between the public interest and the constitutional rights of the practitioner.

Finally, Mr Justice Barniville observed that where a practitioner is the subject of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence to which the practitioner is entitled is a “significant factor” to be weighed in the balance, but that the presumption “does not amount to a legal or jurisdictional bar to an interim suspension order being made”.

Turning to the case before him, Mr Justice Barniville was satisfied that the allegations against the doctor were extremely serious and applying O’Ceallaigh, it appeared that the case as against the doctor was strong as the material provided to the court suggested that the UK police authorities could connect the doctor to the devices upon which serious images of child pornography and other extreme pornography were found.

The court was further satisfied that if the allegations against the doctor were upheld in a fitness to practise process involving him, the appropriate sanction would be the cancellation of his registration as it was “hard to imagine anything more serious than the matters that are being alleged against the respondent which are the subject of the criminal charges currently pending in the United Kingdom”.

The court accepted the Medical Council’s submission that not much weight should be attached to the doctor’s right to earn a livelihood in Ireland as he had never sought to practise medicine in this jurisdiction and where his preference, as appearing from the transcript of the September 2025 meeting with the Medical Council, was that he would clear his name in the UK and continue to practise medicine there.

As to the doctor’s good name and reputation, the court was unconvinced that those rights “should trump the need to ensure that the public is protected in this jurisdiction” where the allegations were the subject of criminal charges which would now take their course in the UK.

With regard to the presumption of innocence, the court explained that nothing in its ruling should be interpreted as seeking to undermine that presumption which the doctor continued to enjoy, but that same did not amount to a bar or jurisdictional obstacle to granting the orders sought, and that the public interest favoured the granting of the orders sought.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court granted the orders sought by the Medical Council at paragraphs 1–6 of its motion and stipulated that those orders would remain in place until steps or further steps are taken under Part 7 and, if applicable, Parts 8 and 9 of the Act.

The Medical Council v RS (A Medical Practitioner) [2025] IEHC 542