Constitutional Court Nullifies Medical Council Proceedings Against Doctor And MP Stephen Spiteri
In a significant ruling delivered on Tuesday, the Constitutional Court nullified the proceedings initiated by the Medical Council against Stephen Spiteri, who is also a Member of Parliament for the Nationalist Party.
The court determined that the council’s actions violated Spiteri’s fundamental rights to a fair hearing.
The case revolved around allegations that Spiteri had been signing medical certificates without conducting proper patient examinations.
These claims were first brought to light by an exclusive story published by Lovin Malta in 2017. Following the publication, the Medical Council launched an investigation into the matter.
However, according to a Times report, Judge Robert Mangion found that the Medical Council’s multiple functions, which encompassed investigation, prosecution, and issuing penalties, resulted in a “classic case of a structural lack of objective impartiality.”
He stated that the council failed to meet the criteria for objective impartiality, as it possessed the authority to prosecute the accused, summon witnesses to support its allegations, and ultimately decide on the outcome of the case.
Spiteri lodged the constitutional proceedings in 2020, contending that the Medical Council was acting as judge, jury, and prosecutor in his case.
His legal team argued that the procedures followed by the council lacked independence and impartiality.
They pointed out that the council’s legal advisor responded to Spiteri’s submissions and that the complainant had the opportunity to testify at the hearing and influence the evidence presented.
Despite Spiteri’s objections, the proceedings continued, prompting his legal team to describe the council’s actions as “shameless and totally imprudent.”
In its defence, the Medical Council maintained that it conducted the proceedings with utmost independence and impartiality, granting all parties an equal opportunity to present their case. Additionally, the council asserted that Spiteri retained the right to appeal its decision in the appeals court.
The council argued that the notion of a “judge, jury, and prosecutor” was applicable to criminal cases, not disciplinary proceedings. It contended that the relevant articles from the Maltese constitution and the European Convention did not extend to disciplinary proceedings of this nature.
However, Judge Mangion rejected this argument, highlighting that a doctor only has the right to appeal to the appeals court when the council strikes their name off the medical register. This right does not apply in cases where a doctor faces suspension or fines of up to €20,000.
As part of the court’s ruling, Mangion ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Speaker of Parliament, drawing attention to the potential conflicts of interest arising from the dual role of a medical practitioner serving as a Member of Parliament.
Spiteri was represented by lawyers Duncan Borg Myatt and Victor Scerri, who effectively argued that the council’s actions violated his fundamental rights.
The Constitutional Court’s decision to nullify the Medical Council’s proceedings against Dr. Spiteri brings to light the importance of maintaining objective impartiality in disciplinary procedures. This ruling serves as a reminder that all individuals, regardless of their professional or political affiliations, are entitled to a fair hearing and due process of law.
What do you make of this verdict?
READ NEXT: 'Not An Ounce Of Respect!' Mark Anthony Sammut Calls Out Project Green’s Claim Of Gudja Garden 'Transformation'
