Midwife fails in inquiry challenge over witnesses

A Co Dublin midwife yesterday lost an attempt to have three experts attend on her behalf an inquiry by the Nursing Board's Fitness…

A Co Dublin midwife yesterday lost an attempt to have three experts attend on her behalf an inquiry by the Nursing Board's Fitness to Practise committee into an allegation of professional misconduct against her.

In the High Court Ms Ann O Ceallaigh, a self-employed domiciliary midwife, of Temple Crescent, Blackrock, Co Dublin, had sought orders by way of judicial review, overturning the committee's decision to refuse permission to two British midwives and an Irish research sociologist to attend the inquiry.

She had asked the court for a declaration that the committee acted unlawfully in not permitting Ms Mary Cronk, Prof Leslie Page and Miss Marie O'Connor to attend the committee's hearing. She also sought an order directing the committee to permit them to attend.

Ms Cronk, a midwife in the UK, is a member of the midwifery committee and the professional conduct committee of the UK Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting.

READ MORE

Prof Page is Professor of Midwifery at the Wolfson Institute of Health at Thames Valley University, and Ms O'Connor is a research sociologist and author of a report for the Department of Health, Women and Birth: a National Study of Intentional Home Birth in Ireland, and of a book, Birth Tides.

Ms O Ceallaigh proposed to call the first two as expert witnesses while Ms O'Connor was to act as adviser to her legal representatives.

Mr Justice McCracken said Ms O Ceallaigh had argued she was entitled to be represented by these people although she was being represented by a solicitor and two senior counsel.

He did not see how it could be argued that an expert could be representing a party, since the whole point of calling these witnesses was that they would assist the committee as outside experts and not as interested parties only putting forward the point of view of Ms O Ceallaigh.

While the Fitness to Practise Committee had the discretion to sit in public or private and to admit specified people at its hearings, he would not interfere with that discretion unless the decision could be shown to be irrational or did not comply with natural justice.

The committee had indicated that expert witnesses could be furnished with transcripts of the hearing as it took place. It was reasonable and rational for the committee to rule that the witnesses could acquaint themselves with the evidence by reading the transcript, and for the committee not to want to depart from its normal rule that the hearing must be in private.

The judge said He had no doubt there was no inherent unfairness in the experts not being present, provided they were given the transcript of the evidence, and counsel were given the opportunity to consult them before cross-examination.

He dismissed Ms O Ceallaigh's application.