THE Eastern Health Board has refused to release documents to the Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Committee in the Dr Moira Woods case, the committee was told yesterday.
The committee adjourned its hearing of the case indefinitely to await the outcome of two High Court cases.
Earlier, the committee lifted its restriction on the number of reporters who could attend, despite arguments from Dr Woods's counsel that the restrictions should not be lifted. But its chairwoman, Prof Patricia Casey, warned the media the decision could be reversed if they revealed the identity of parents or children.
The committee's inquiry arises from complaints of professional misconduct made against Dr Woods by parents from five families who say they were wrongly accused of child sexual abuse in the late 1980s. Dr Woods was involved in examining alleged child abuse victims in the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, at the time.
Yesterday's hearing was told by Mr Kevin Feeney SC, representing the registrar, Mr Brian Lea, that the Eastern Health Board had refused to provide documentation which both Dr Woods's legal team and Mr Lea considered necessary.
The EHB had based its refusal on a judgment in a different case by Ms Justice Laffoy in the High Court last June. It argued that the judgment meant that inquiries into fitness to practise could not take place into matters which were the subject matter of in-camera proceedings.
The EHB had asked the committee to withdraw its order for the documents, saying that if it did not do so it would apply to the High Court to have the committee's order quashed.
The committee took the view it was a statutory body entitled to the documents and would urge the EHB to go to the High Court forthwith, he said. In making an order for the documents, the committee had the same power as the High Court, Mr Feeney said.
He also referred to the judicial review being sought by Dr James Barry in the High Court. Dr Barry was arguing that the committee was not entitled to hold an inquiry in private where the medical practitioner wanted it held in public. The registrar of the Medical Council would be arguing that whether to hold an inquiry in public or private was discretionary and subject to the circumstances of each case.
Dr Barry was also arguing there was not sufficient distance between the Fitness to Practise Committee and its legal adviser and the registrar as prosecutor.
This case would be heard, in all probability, in the month of January but it would then be open to the parties to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Woods case would be a long-term, consuming, significant and serious inquiry and it would be wrong to embark on it until these matters - the EHB refusal to provide documentation and the judicial review in the Barry case - had been dealt with by the High Court.
Following a brief adjournment the chairwoman, Prof Casey, said the committee was adjourning the hearing until further notice.
At the start of yesterday's proceedings Prof Casey referred to its decision in December that the identities of families and children should be protected.
It had come to the committee's notice that there had been certain media and TV coverage of the parents prior to the hearing. She believed this was not in the best interests of children and she asked the media to consider this. The committee would monitor the publicity given to the hearings and would reserve the right to hold them in private.
Mr Feeney referred to the committee's decision in December that a maximum of two journalists would be allowed to report on the proceedings.
I There was a restriction on the committee as to the number of people it could have on the floor of the building where the inquiry was being held at any one time.
Mr Eugene Gleeson SC, for Dr Woods, argued that the number of journalists at the hearing should be restricted to two. In the Barry case, the High Court was being asked to consider whether the committee had the jurisdiction to hold hearings in private or public against the wishes of the medical practitioner.
In reply to Mr John McMenamin SC, legal assessor to the committee, Mr Gleeson said he had been advised not to seek a judicial review of the decision to hold the hearings in public.