Maternity hospital inquiry blocked

Mr Justice Charles Meenan said it was irrational and unreasonable for the minister to direct such an investigation into what happened at the hospital when such practices are investigated, without his intervention, in many other hospitals across the health service.

The judge found that the minister, before ordering his inquiry, had not properly considered the findings and recommendations of three other reports: those of the coroner’s inquest; an internal NMH inquiry; and a further Health Service Executive probe.

These followed the death of Malak Thawley, aged 34, when her aorta was accidentally torn by a doctor, during investigative treatment relating to a suspected pregnancy outside the womb. The National Maternity Hospital, in Holles Street, had legally challenged the minister’s direction to the Health Information and Quality Authority and asked for it to be quashed.

Judge Meenan said the minister had responsibility for the safety of patients using services provided by various health institutions, including the hospital, and must have believed, on reasonable grounds, that there was a serious risk to patients at the NMH.

He said the far-reaching implications of this were self-evident for patients, for those who referred patients, and for the medical and nursing and midwifery staff, and, surprisingly for a minister, took six months to file a statement of opposition to the judicial review of his decision, which was being sought by the hospital.

The judge said there had been lengthy exchanges of correspondence to, and meetings with, the minister, involving Caoimhe Haughey, of C.M. Haughey Solicitors, who acted for Alan Thawley, husband of the late Ms Thawley.

Judge Meenan found that the minister, through his officials, had not carried out any investigation of his own, but claimed to rely upon the NMH and HSE reports and evidence at the inquest. It was clear to the court that the findings, recommendations, and conclusions of these reports had not been properly considered.

The minister and his officials had stated, on numerous occasions, that the minister’s proposed inquiry would be “a learning exercise”, since the practices being inquired into were across the health system.

The judge found that the grounds relied upon by the minister, in his statement of opposition to the High Court challenge, had not been supported by the relevant reports, correspondence, or the evidence given during the High Court hearing.

He said the object of the minister’s proposed investigation must be to eliminate a risk, rather than to be a learning exercise, and it was irrational and unreasonable for the minister to direct such an inquiry. Judge Meenan quashed the decision of the minister to order his inquiry.