Doctor at centre of human trafficking allegations challenges HSE move to terminate employment

A consultant doctor at the centre of human trafficking allegations has taken a High Court challenge against the HSE’s alleged decision to terminate his employment.

The doctor, who denies any wrongdoing, says the purported decision to summarily dismiss him has been done under the guise of a retirement, in the absence of any form of investigation or disciplinary procedure by the HSE, and is unlawful.

He claims the HSE’s decision to end his employment was made in the absence of fair procedures, due process, and in breach of his contract.

The doctor, who cannot be named by order of the court, claims he was put on administrative leave by the HSE after he was arrested, his home and office were searched, and electronic devices were seized by gardaí last year.

Gardaí to use undercover lorry to see into cars and HGVs and film distracted drivers

---

Radio: The 2 Johnnies set to leave 2FM next week, RTÉ confirms

---

Former Tipperary police barracks could make fine home for €550,000

---

The Pillowman review: Martin McDonagh’s early play gets a pin-sharp, meticulously controlled staging from Lyric and Prime Cut

---

Gardaí carried out those actions a year after initially contacting the doctor about an investigation into a person from southern Africa who was seeking permission to enter Ireland and relying on correspondence from him to access the State.

Questioned

The doctor was subsequently questioned by the gardaí over alleged human trafficking offences, under the 2000 Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act and the 1998 Child Trafficking and Pornography Act.

He says he was questioned about photos on one of the devices, including pictures of his own young children taking a bath that were sent to him by the children’s mother. He denies any criminal wrongdoing and says he has not been charged with any offences in relation to these matters.

The doctor claims that following the publication of stories in the media about his arrest as part of an investigation into alleged human trafficking last month, he received a letter from the HSE’s human resources section informing him that his employment had concluded and that he was to retire from his duties.

The doctor says he was “shocked and surprised” by this letter and, in a sworn statement to the court, says he has been dismissed under the guise of a retirement because of the articles. He intends to appeal the HSE’s decision and claims his suspension was never reviewed by the health authority.

The doctor, who has for many years worked in various Irish public hospitals, also claims that while on suspension he was contacted by other medical personnel seeking his advice on clinical matters. He fears that the HSE’s decision will have a profound and damaging effect on his personal and professional reputation.

The doctor, represented by Jason Murray Bl, instructed by Orpen Franks Solicitors LLP, is seeking various orders including an injunction restraining the HSE from implementing and imposing its purported decision to terminate his employment.

Reinstatement

He also seeks orders including one reinstating him to his position, that his salary be continued to be paid and that no steps be taken by the HSE to replace him. The orders, if granted, would remain in place pending the outcome of the full hearing of his challenge against the decision to dismiss him from his job.

The matter came before Friday’s vacation sitting of the High Court. Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds granted the doctor’s lawyers permission, on an ex-parte basis, to serve short notice of the injunction application on the HSE. The judge, after making direction regarding the exchange of documents in the case, adjourned the matter to a date later this month.

Following an application to the court the judge agreed to make temporary reporting restrictions in the case. The judge accepted that the man has not been previously identified in media reporting of the allegations and that he has not been charged with anything.

It was accepted that he would be prejudiced if he was publicly identified as a result of taking proceedings aimed at clearing his name.