A Fitness to Practise Committee that is investigating allegations against a Dublin GP has rejected an application to exclude the evidence of an expert witness.
An application was made by Dr Marcus De Brun, who is facing ten counts of professional misconduct, to have the evidence of Professor Colin Bradley excluded from the inquiry.
Professor Bradley had concluded that the GP's alleged actions were "disgraceful and dishonourable".
Dr Marcus de Brun is accused of ten counts of professional misconduct including alleged criticism of public health guidelines, lockdowns and the wearing of facemasks and Covid-19 vaccines.
He had previously described the use of Covid-19 vaccines in children as a "crime against humanity".
The allegations also relate to comments he made at a rally in 2020 when he was accused of failing to wear a facemask and observe social distancing.
Dr de Brun, who ran a family practice in Rush in north Co Dublin, rose to prominence online due to his outspoken criticism of the State's handling of the pandemic.
He ended his HSE contract due to the way in which the pandemic was handled.
The Medical Council claims Dr de Brun's actions and comments undermined public health guidelines.
An application was made by Dr de Brun to have the evidence of Professor Colin Bradley excluded from the inquiry.
Dr de Brun had told the inquiry in September that it would be unfair if Professor Bradley’s evidence was admitted because it lacked independence.
The inquiry today heard Dr de Brun had made further submissions since then, outlining the reasons why he believed his evidence should be excluded from the inquiry.
His complaints focused on Mr Bradley's methodology, his language and his use of evidence of another witness.
This morning, committee chair Professor Deirdre Murphy said they had the benefit of hearing Professor Bradley's oral testimony and also cross-examination by Dr de Brun.
Dr de Brun, who is representing himself at the inquiry, said "the matter for the committee is deciding on the independence of Professor Bradley".
Dr de Brun told the committee it was "not safe" to use Mr Bradley's evidence and that it does not meet the standards of independence.
He said the CEO of the Irish Medical Council is entitled to retain expert advice to frame, moderate or work through allegations.
However, he added: "In doing so the independent expert becomes involved in the exigency of litigation."
Inquiry satisfied no breach of objectivity in expert's evidence
Barrister Neasa Bird BL, who is representing the CEO of the Irish Medical Council, said they rejected the submissions made by Dr de Brun.
She said that Dr de Brun had suggested that there was a process whereby Professor Bradley was acting as a legal medical advisor to Medical Council.
She said he had "acted independently".
She also said there was "no crafting of a case" by the expert witness and he had been asked to provide his independent opinion.
"It is entirely proper that the CEO calls an expert to give their opinion as to whether the conduct has fallen short…or whether it is disgraceful.
"That is routine. That is normal practice and is not improper as has been suggested by Dr de Brun. There is no absence of independence.
"Rather, Professor Bradley was asked to give his view."
She said decisions were taken on which allegations should be proceeded with and which should not and there was nothing "sinister" about this.
"There is no solicitor-led shaping allegations. Documentation and all the material does not bear that allegation in any way shape or form," she said.
The committee deliberated for over one hour on Dr de Brun's application.
Professor Murphy said they had decided they were satisfied that there was no breach of the fundamental principles of objectivity and that they were satisfied "beyond doubt" not to exclude the evidence of Mr Bradley.
During this morning's hearing, Dr de Brun also outlined the personal toll this inquiry has had on him and the length of time it has taken for it to proceed.
Professor Murphy acknowledged this.
"We acknowledge the difficulty for you personally in the delays and we would wish that not to be the case," she said.
The committee has now adjourned to consider a new application by Dr de Brun.
He told the committee just before lunchtime that he wants a former employee of the Medical Council to give evidence at the inquiry.
Dr de Brun said this is to ascertain if the functions of the Preliminary Complaints Committee (PCC) were carried out properly.
He said he believes that the PCC was not properly informed about Professor Bradley's grave concerns regarding one of the possible witnesses who was later withdrawn by the Prosecution.
He said this is prejudicial to his case.
The Irish Medical Council's Fitness to Practise inquiry into Dr de Brun commenced last September but was adjourned after four days.
The inquiry is scheduled to run for three more days.
