Michael Shine -v- The Fitness to Practise Committee of the Medical Council and anor [2008] IESC 41 (14 July 2008)

Michael Shine -v- The Fitness to Practise Committee of the Medical Council and anor [2008] IESC 41 (14 July 2008)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting prohibition on the basis of double jeopardy, as this ground was neither pleaded nor argued, and no amendment to the grounds was sought. The disciplinary inquiry is distinct from criminal proceedings and is not precluded by acquittal. The appeal was allowed and the order of prohibition set aside to the extent it related to the 'double jeopardy' complainants.

Citation
[2008] IESC 41
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Michael Shine; Respondent/appellant: The Fitness to Practise Committee of the Medical Council; Respondent/appellant: The Medical Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order of Prohibition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Grounds in Judicial Review, Double Jeopardy, Fair Procedures in Disciplinary Proceedings, Delay and Prejudice in Disciplinary Proceedings
Administrative Law Medical Law Judicial Review Leave to Amend Grounds in Judicial Review Double Jeopardy Fair Procedures in Disciplinary Proceedings Delay and Prejudice in Disciplinary Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Shine

Applicant/respondent

The Fitness to Practise Committee of the Medical Council

Respondent/appellant

The Medical Council

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order of Prohibition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting prohibition on the basis of double jeopardy where such ground was not pleaded or argued
  2. 2 Whether the Fitness to Practise Committee could proceed with inquiries into complaints already the subject of criminal acquittal
  3. 3 Whether fairness or delay precluded further inquiry

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting prohibition on the basis of double jeopardy, as this ground was neither pleaded nor argued, and no amendment to the grounds was sought. The disciplinary inquiry is distinct from criminal proceedings and is not precluded by acquittal. The appeal was allowed and the order of prohibition set aside to the extent it related to the 'double jeopardy' complainants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of prohibition set aside insofar as it related to the complainants whose allegations had been the subject of the criminal trial and acquittal.