Medical Council v Yunos

1 [APPROVED] THE HIGH COURT [2026] IEHC 237 Record No. 2026 No. 55 MCA IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 71 OF THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 2007 AND IN THE MATTER OF A REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND ON THE APPLICATION OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL BETWEEN MEDICAL COUNCIL APPLICANT AND AMIRUL MOHD YUNOS RESPONDENT Ex tempore JUDGMENT of Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered on the 13th day of April, 2026 2 1. This is my judgment on a truly appalling and shocking case in which the Medical Council seeks orders under s. 71 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (as amended) (the “2007 Act”) confirming the decision of the Council to cancel the Respondent’s registration in accordance with s. 71(1)(f) of the 2007 Act. 2. The background to and the circumstances of the application are set out in the grounding affidavit of Dr Maria O’Kane, Chief Executive Officer of the Medical Council. As explained by Dr O’Kane, the Respondent doctor is registered on the General Division of the Register maintained by the Medical Council under the 2007 Act. It is noted that the Respondent is currently incarcerated at Midlands Prison, Portlaoise, Co. Laois. 3. The genesis of the matter, as far as the Medical Council was concerned, was a complaint that it received on 29 September 2023 from Dr Larkin Feeney, Consultant Psychiatrist at St John of God Adult Community Mental Health Services and Executive Clinical Director of Community Health East Mental Health Services. Dr Feeney outlined to the Council in his complaint that Community Health East Mental Health Services had been notified of correspondence and information provided by Ms Sinéad Tarr, Principal Social Worker for the Child and Family Agency (the “CFA”), to Dr Louise Sharkey, Consultant Psychiatrist, on 19 September 2023. This correspondence asserted that, on 12 September 2023, the CFA was notified of a serious allegation that had been made against the Respondent of sexual assault of a minor which was alleged to have occurred at the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (“CAMHS”) building in Clonskeagh, Dublin 14. Ms Tarr further informed Community Health East Mental Health Services that the Respondent was advised not to have unsupervised contact with children while the allegations were being assessed. It was confirmed that staff had been interviewed by Gardaí in relation to the alleged incident and that the Respondent had been placed on administrative leave. Dr Feeney requested that the Medical Council take on the role of complainant in the matter. 3 4. On 3 October 2023, the previous Chief Executive Officer of the Medical Council decided to make a complaint pursuant to s. 57 of the 2007 Act to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (the “PPC”) of the Medical Council. 5. On 11 October 2023, the matter was brought before the Medical Council itself in order to consider whether to bring an application to suspend the Respondent’s registration under s. 60 of the 2007 Act. The Council decided that such an application should be made. That application was made to me on 20 October 2023. I ordered on that date, with the consent of the Respondent, that the Respondent’s registration be suspended on an interim basis until the relevant processes under the 2007 Act were concluded. 6. While the PPC was considering the matter, the Medical Council became aware, from an article listed in the Sunday Independent titled “Camhs psychiatrist pleads guilty to sexual abuse and exploitation of teen”, of the fact that the Respondent had appeared before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and had pleaded guilty to the sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor. It was confirmed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office to the PPC that the article in the Sunday Independent related to the Respondent. It was further confirmed to the PPC by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office that the Respondent had been arraigned on 25 June 2024, that he had pleaded guilty to a number of charges on that date, that the matter was put back for sentencing and that the Respondent had been remanded in custody. 7. On 17 July 2024, the PPC met and decided under s. 57(1)(g) and s. 57(5) of the 2007 Act to refer the complaint in respect of the Respondent to the Medical Council itself. Steps were then taken to obtain additional information as to when the sentencing hearing would take place. Ultimately, it took place before Her Honour Judge Orla Crowe in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 27 November 2024 and continued on 3 December 2024. 8. On 3 December 2024, the Medical Council became aware of an online article on RTÉ.ie titled “Child psychiatrist jailed for sexually abusing girl”. The Respondent was identified in the 4 article which stated that a sentence of 8 years and 6 months was imposed on the Respondent and was backdated to when he first went into custody. 9. The Medical Council, through its solicitors, applied to the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to obtain a certificate of the conviction and the Digital Audio Recording (the “DAR”) of the sentencing hearings on 27 November 2024 and 3 December 2024. Judge Crowe granted that application, but indicated that there were reporting restrictions in the case under which nothing could be published that would identify the victim by name or by address. 10. The conviction of the Respondent is set out in the certificate provided by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. It indicates that the Respondent pleaded guilty to 8 counts – one count of sexual exploitation of a child contrary to s. 3(2) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998, as substituted by s. 3 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008, one count of meeting a child for the purpose of sexual exploitation contrary to s. 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 and 6 counts of engaging in a sexual act with a child contrary to s. 3(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as substituted by s. 17 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. Those 6 counts related to 6 separate occasions on which the sexual abuse took place. Judge Crowe ordered that the accused be imprisoned for a period of 8 years and 6 months in relation to those 6 counts, and she also took into consideration the first two counts, namely, sexual exploitation and meeting a child for the purpose of sexual exploitation. 11. The Medical Council set a date for 17 June 2025 to meet to consider the matter. However, due to difficulties the Respondent apparently had appearing by video link that day, the meeting was postponed to 21 October 2025. The Respondent was on notice of the 21 October 2025 meeting date and was invited to attend the meeting, but chose not to do so. At the meeting on 21 October 2025, the Medical Council had to be satisfied, in relation to the conviction for the purposes of s. 57 of the 2007 Act, that the relevant offences were such as to render the 5 Respondent a person who had permanently ceased to be a fit and proper person to continue to practise medicine, and that it was in the public interest that the Medical Council take action immediately under s. 57(6) of the 2007 Act. 12. Having considered the matter, the Medical Council was satisfied that the statutory criteria were all satisfied, and that the Respondent had permanently ceased to be a fit and proper person to continue to practise medicine and that it was in the public interest that the Council take action immediately. 13. The Council decided to impose the sanction of cancellation of the Respondent’s registration. It gave reasons for its decision. The principal reasons were that the Council had considered the relevant convictions, and that it considered that the convictions related to offences at the very height of seriousness. They included the sexual exploitation of a child by the Respondent and engaging in a sexual act with a child, including at his place of work, such that it rendered the Respondent to no longer be a fit and proper person to practise medicine by reason of his conduct. That conduct, the Council stated, was fundamentally incompatible with practising as a medical practitioner. 14. Further, the Council indicated that having considered the transcript of Judge Crowe’s sentencing remarks, it was satisfied that there were significant aggravating circumstances in the case. They included the fact that the Respondent was a doctor and psychiatrist in Clonskeagh Hospital when he was approached by the family of a vulnerable young girl suffering from a possible psychiatric condition. The Respondent was known to the family, and trust was therefore central to the family approaching him, in addition to the fact that the Respondent was a psychiatrist. The seriousness of the matter was reflected in the sentencing remarks of Ms Justice Crowe, which the Council considered to be particularly relevant. It is noted in the transcript of the sentencing hearing before Judge Crowe on 27 November 2024 that the Respondent “…portrayed himself as a very religious man within his community, and 6 that was instilled in the victim as well” and that, in the victim’s own words, she “placed her whole trust in the [Respondent] and firmly believed what he said was gospel” (sentencing hearing transcript of 27 November 2024 at p. 9). Based on that trust, sexual exploitation of the child was inflicted by the Respondent. 15. The Council noted the 8 counts on which the Respondent was convicted. The counts were as follows: one count of sexual exploitation, one count of meeting a child for the purpose of sexual exploitation and six counts of engaging in a sexual act with a child. Five of the counts of engaging in a sexual act with a child occurred between 23 May 2023 and 24 June 2023 when the child was 15 years of age. One count occured on 8 September 2023, when the child had turned 16 years of age. The locations involved were in a car, in the Respondent’s home, in the victim’s home and in the Respondent’s place of work. The detail and depravity of the conduct which gave rise to the conviction is evident from a review of the sentencing remarks and the sentencing hearing before Judge Crowe. 16. In those circumstances, the Council took the view that the convictions and the circumstances in which the offences were committed constituted conduct that was incompatible with the practise of medicine, and the Council was satisfied that immediate action should be taken to protect the public, to uphold the professional standards of the medical profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession. 17. The Council was satisfied that cancellation was the appropriate sanction to impose, notwithstanding that hardship might be caused to the Respondent and his family and that his constitutional rights relating to his reputation and good name and his right to earn a livelihood might be affected. These rights were, however, to be balanced against the public interest. The situation here must be viewed in the context of a medical practitioner who pleaded guilty to the numerous offences which I have mentioned. The Council was, therefore, satisfied that cancellation of the Respondent’s registration was the only appropriate sanction in the 7 circumstances. The Respondent was duly informed of that decision. For reasons set out in a ruling I gave at the outset of the hearing this afternoon, I was satisfied that the application could proceed today in the Respondent’s absence having been satisfied that the Respondent had been served with the papers for this confirmation application and that he was on notice of the confirmation application hearing today. He has elected not to attend the hearing, whether in person or remotely. 18. Under s. 76(3) of the 2007 Act, I am required to confirm the decision of the Council unless there is “good reason” not to do so. This must be the most clear-cut and obvious decision I have ever had to make as a judge. There can be absolutely no doubt but that no sanction other than cancellation of his registration could possibly have been imposed on the Respondent in this case. This is such a truly appalling and shocking case, and it is hard to imagine a case more serious than this. In my view, the Council could not have imposed any sanction on the Respondent other than cancellation of his registration. It is not conceivable that the Respondent could be permitted to remain on the register or that he could ever be permitted to practise again in this country (or elsewhere) given the depravity of his criminal conduct and his gross abuse of trust. I am quite satisfied that there is no good reason present why I should not confirm the decision of the Council. 19. I will, therefore, make an order in the terms of para. 1 of the Originating Motion ex parte, and I will confirm the decision made by the Council to cancel the Respondent’s registration.