Dr Sheill practised as a general practitioner in the United Kingdom for a number of years and was first registered with the General Medical Council (“GMC”) in 1987. In 2007, he was struck off the register following a Fitness to Practise hearing which found 43 allegations of misconduct proven against him. He had previously been registered in Ireland in 1987/1988. In 2017, he applied to have his name restored to the register in Ireland.
The Medical Council in Ireland operates a two-stage internal procedure in respect of applications for registration. The Registration and Continuing Practice Committee ("RCPC") (Stage 1) refused Dr Sheill's application. They found that he had demonstrated insufficient insight into the matters which led to the striking of his name off the register in the UK. Dr Sheill then exercised his right to have the RCPC's decision reviewed by a Review Panel (Stage 2).
The Review Panel hearing took place in private in 2022 over the course of four days. The Review Panel also recommended that Dr Sheill's application be refused on the basis that Dr Sheill was unfit to practise medicine. In April 2023, the Medical Council ultimately accepted the Review Panel’s recommendation and refused Dr Sheill's application.
Dr Sheill appealed the decision to the High Court under section 54(3) of the Medical Practitioners Act, 2007 alleging inter alia breaches of fair procedures, discrimination on grounds of his sexual orientation, bias, and complaining that his hearing was not held in public, instead taking place over Zoom.
High Court decision and key observations
Dr Sheill's appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. The High Court determined that the Medical Council's procedures at issue here were administrative in nature. However, it emphasised that regulatory bodies must ensure that essential safeguards are in place due to the serious consequences their decisions may have. The Court noted that what constitutes "sufficient safeguards" depends on the facts of each individual case, medicine isn't "one-dose-fits-all".
Although this case delved into a doctor's fitness to practise, it also shone a light on professional misconduct and procedural fairness.
Procedural fairness: While the safeguards in this case, which was an administrative application for registration, were sufficient, the decision served as a reminder that procedural fairness in regulatory/disciplinary matters is of critical importance given the significance of what is at stake for registrants, i.e., their ability to practise their chosen profession.
Professional misconduct: This case emphasised the Medical Council's role in ensuring medical professionals continue to meet ethical and safety standards within the profession.
Elective cosmetic procedures: Cosmetic procedures continue to remain unregulated in Ireland. Dr Sheill was the owner and Medical Director of his own aesthetic clinic in the UK. Some of the findings of misconduct made against him in the UK were that his management of the clinic was "unsafe and inadequate". Findings were also made against Dr Sheill regarding his provision of services which required registration under the Care Services Act 2000 when he did not have the requisite registration.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that, if one holds themselves out as a medical doctor with the qualification and/or expertise to carry out certain treatments, they are not only appropriately qualified, but also meet the appropriate regulatory requirements.
