Medical case - unable to attend due to clinical responsibilities

So, I've been called to a "legal case" regarding a clinical matter. I had no involvement in the actual incident but would have been involved in the patient's care in general. Anyway, the HSE said I would not be allowed to take leave off work to attend this (due to clinical responsibilities etc). Received an E-mail (after saying that it was decided by my superiors that it didn't actually relate to me) saying I would be in contempt of court if I didn't attend.

Can a court insist you attend and make you use annual leave to make a statement at a court case?

tinner777

Speak to the local hse solicitor. There is definitely someone attached.

athlone573

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, I've been called to a "legal case" regarding a clinical matter. I had no involvement in the actual incident but would have been involved in the patient's care in general. Anyway, the HSE said I would not be allowed to take leave off work to attend this (due to clinical responsibilities etc). Received an E-mail (after saying that it was decided by my superiors that it didn't actually relate to me) saying I would be in contempt of court if I didn't attend.

Can a court insist you attend and make you use annual leave to make a statement at a court case?

Did you get an actual summons?

Tell the Head of HR to write a letter to the court telling them you're not available? The judge might like that.

alchemist33

If you're a doctor, speak to the MDU/MPS as well, maybe even IMO. Your managers are putting you in a difficult position here and really shouldn't be.

GM228

Deleted User wrote: »

So, I've been called to a "legal case" regarding a clinical matter. I had no involvement in the actual incident but would have been involved in the patient's care in general. Anyway, the HSE said I would not be allowed to take leave off work to attend this (due to clinical responsibilities etc). Received an E-mail (after saying that it was decided by my superiors that it didn't actually relate to me) saying I would be in contempt of court if I didn't attend.

Can a court insist you attend and make you use annual leave to make a statement at a court case?

When you say "called", I assume you mean a witness summons? If so it is a legal requirement to attend and your employer has no choice, so the answer in that case is yes you must attend, the matter of A/L or otherwise is for the employer to decide, not the courts though.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

When you say "called", I assume you mean a witness summons? If so it is a legal requirement to attend and your employer has no choice, so the answer in that case is yes you must attend, the matter of A/L or otherwise is for the employer to decide, not the courts though.

So the court's opinion overrides clinical responsibility? I'm called before a court for clinical opinion, that overrules my responsibilities to patients? Delaying treatment?

Victor

Deleted User wrote: »

Can a court insist you attend and make you use annual leave to make a statement at a court case?

Note that you are entitled to your expenses.

GM228

Deleted User wrote: »

So the court's opinion overrides clinical responsibility? I'm called before a court for clinical opinion, that overrules my responsibilities to patients? Delaying treatment?

Summons don't have a moral compass, you are required by law to attend, failure to do so could see a warrant issued for your arrest.

alibab

It’s up to your managers to provide cover for you . You are obliged to attend court. They need to enable this and provide cover in your absence. Contact HSE Solictor and tell them you are meeting resistance to attending I am sure they won’t be long about sorting this out . No one person including you is that indispensable that can’t be covered with notice . Sure you could be out with covid in the morning and need replacement.

JustAThought

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, I've been called to a "legal case" regarding a clinical matter. I had no involvement in the actual incident but would have been involved in the patient's care in general. Anyway, the HSE said I would not be allowed to take leave off work to attend this (due to clinical responsibilities etc). Received an E-mail (after saying that it was decided by my superiors that it didn't actually relate to me) saying I would be in contempt of court if I didn't attend.

Can a court insist you attend and make you use annual leave to make a statement at a court case?

I was summoned to appear as a witness to an incident that I had no personal interest or involvement in. I advised my manager/director who told me we were too busy and I couldn’t attend. I advised the solicitor who subsequently sent me a registered letter with a witness summons naming me and the timeframe required. I showed this to my boss ( director) thinking this would be fine and they told me if I went they would fire me. Classy. I thought as the sole witness that I should do the right thing & step up - this was before everyone had iphones and cctv was on every business & streetcorner. I had little choice anyway as I was assured I would end up with a conviction myself if I ignored the order. I turned up at the court on the day & to my HORROR was casually informed that we had to wait to find out what courtroom and judge would hear the case & that it wouldn’t be starting at 9am (as I’d expected) and it could last 12 days and I would ve expected to turn up and be there for as long and as often as was needed. HORRORSTRUCK. Maybe my boss had had experience of this. On the second day of this I was in a panic and asked the solicitor to explain to the judge that I was urgently needed in work and was essential etc to which the judge took offense and said they were essential themselves and who did I think I was, and called for an early lunch and sodded off. I was not released that day either. Q paniced voicemail to boss.
On the THIRD day I was let home at 10 to 5 pm , despite repeat urgent requests to be let go back to work if not needed further to testify & with the added urgency that my boss had said they’d let me go if I missed any more tjme. The judge said this was illegal and shrugged it off.
My boss fired me. I had no redress. I was totally screwed by the system and felt it not worth fighting as it would cost me more time and money in the long run - and who wants to work for such an *******.

Put it in writing to your HR department and send them a copy of the letter/witness summons. They can’t push this burden back onto you to sort out - it is their job. You make no commitments and leave it in the hands of the locum or whomever. You may be missing for more than one day.
Bitter experience.

Lenar3556

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So the court's opinion overrides clinical responsibility? I'm called before a court for clinical opinion, that overrules my responsibilities to patients? Delaying treatment?

You are an employee, cover in your absence is a matter for your employer. If you have moral concerns surrounding your absence from work, it may be good to raise these with your employer in the first instance.

If you are summonsed to attend court, you are obliged to attend. A warrant may be issued for your arrest if you do not attend.

It is possible that you have been less formally asked to attend (possibly at the request of the judge) to provide evidence as to the medical condition of someone you were involved in the care of. You are under no obligation to attend if you have not been summonsed, but a witness summons may follow if you don’t take up the invitation.

Lenar3556

Lenar3556 wrote: »

You are an employee, cover in your absence is a matter for your employer. If you have moral concerns surrounding your absence from work, it may be good to raise these with your employer in the first instance.

If you are summonsed to attend court, you are obliged to attend. A warrant may be issued for your arrest if you do not attend.

It is possible that you have been less formally asked to attend (possibly at the request of the judge) to provide evidence as to the medical condition of someone you were involved in the care of. You are under no obligation to attend if you have not been summonsed, but a witness summons may follow if you don’t take up the invitation.

It isn’t quite as simple as that for medical personnel. The responsibilities of a Dr/surgeon/pharmacist etc working in a hospital are not the same as typical workplaces. Has a warrant ever been issued for the arrest of a Dr/Pharmacist who cannot attend Court due to their attendance at work being critical for patient care?

Op, I’ve given evidence on numerous occasions, consideration has been given to my availability which meant I didn’t have to sit in Court for a full day/days waiting my turn. Explain to your employer that you may be called on to give evidence and have to leave, ask the solicitor to phone you when you are about to be called on.

BattleCorp

Dav010 wrote: »

It isn’t quite as simple as that for medical personnel. The responsibilities of a Dr/surgeon/pharmacist etc working in a hospital are not the same as typical workplaces. Has a warrant ever been issued for the arrest of a Dr/Pharmacist who cannot attend Court due to their attendance at work being critical for patient care?

If the doctor/surgeon/pharmacist was sick, then the employer would have to make alternative arrangements. I don't see why it would be any different for a court summons.

Lenar3556

Dav010 wrote: »

It isn’t quite as simple as that for medical personnel. The responsibilities of a Dr/surgeon/pharmacist etc working in a hospital are not the same as typical workplaces. Has a warrant ever been issued for the arrest of a Dr/Pharmacist who cannot attend Court due to their attendance at work being critical for patient care?

A warrant may well be issued if the individual thought they were too busy or too important to attend court.

Lenar3556

Lenar3556 wrote: »

A warrant may well be issued if the individual thought they were too busy or too important to attend court.

There was no inference that medical staff think of themselves as too important to attend, I’m not sure where you got that from. A warrant may well be issued, has it ever been in the past for medical staff whose attendance at work was critical? Perhaps you might give an example.

Peregrinus

Things like the issue of a warrant aren't reported as court decisions, so there is no database that can be consulted to answer this question.

Plus, the situation is usually resolved without the need to issue warrants, by the old-fashioned method of people actually talking to one another. Witness, or witness's employer, contacts solicitor to explain the difficulty about attending and to discuss some arrangement which, with a bit of give and take, can be made to work for both sides. I think it's only in cases in which the witness simply refuses to engage with these efforts that resort to a warrant would be considered. The lawyer who wants the witness to appear generally doesn't want him to be extremely angry about appearing; you prefer your witnesses to be co-operative with the process.

jimmycrackcorm

I'm just wondering if this issue is confused with jury duty. Jury duty can be refused for certain professions such as medical professionals.

It seems bizarre to refuse attendance as a witness though. Imagine you are the only witness to a murder and type boss tells you that you can't testify in court...

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Things like the issue of a warrant aren't reported as court decisions, so there is no database that can be consulted to answer this question.

Plus, the situation is usually resolved without the need to issue warrants, by the old-fashioned method of people actually talking to one another. Witness, or witness's employer, contacts solicitor to explain the difficulty about attending and to discuss some arrangement which, with a bit of give and take, can be made to work for both sides. I think it's only in cases in which the witness simply refuses to engage with these efforts that resort to a warrant would be considered. The lawyer who wants the witness to appear generally doesn't want him to be extremely angry about appearing; you prefer your witnesses to be co-operative with the process.

This was my point. Unfortunately a couple of posters quoted the first paragraph of an earlier post and omitted/ignored the second where I said that consideration was given to the times I am available to give evidence, and I am informed if I will be called first in the morning or afternoon so that I don’t need to sit in the court for any longer than necessary.


In relation to Lenar3556’s statement that a “warrant may well be issued”, I’ll settle for anecdotal accounts, has anyone ever heard of a Judge issuing a warrant for a Doctor/Pharmacist after being told by the Hospital that their attendance at work is critical for patient care?

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

This was my point. Unfortunately a couple of posters quoted the first paragraph of an earlier post and omitted/ignored the second where I said that consideration was given to the times I am available to give evidence, and I am informed if I will be called first in the morning or afternoon so that I don’t need to sit in the court for any longer than necessary.

Yes. As I say, that's the way these things are usually resolved.

But the question raised by the OP was "can a court insist you attend"? And the answer is yes, they can. And if you're bolshie about it and refuse to engage with efforts to facilitate your attendance at a time that minimises impact on your work, they'll make you attend at a time chosen without regard to impact on your work.

GM228

Dav010 wrote: »

In relation to Lenar3556’s statement that a “warrant may well be issued”, I’ll settle for anecdotal accounts, has anyone ever heard of a Judge issuing a warrant for a Doctor/Pharmacist after being told by the Hospital that their attendance at work is critical for patient care?

I think there was mention of an instance in the British Medical Journal 1953 The Doctor In The Witness-Box IIRC (read it several years ago so only going by memory), and of course that was 68 years ago so things may be a bit different now.

But arrest warrants are not the most commonly issued orders in relation to failure to attend of a witness as Peregrinus notes because generally speaking witnesses do show up or the issue is otherwise resolved, the chances of finding a report or even anecdotal accounts of such are slim, but, the point to take is such a warrant could be issued, not that one will be.

I do know of an occasion where a judge made it perfectly clear that a doctor must attend as a witness the same as anyone else would via a witness statement, but that was an issue over fees and arrest warrants never came into it.

Lenar3556

Dav010 wrote: »

This was my point. Unfortunately a couple of posters quoted the first paragraph of an earlier post and omitted/ignored the second where I said that consideration was given to the times I am available to give evidence, and I am informed if I will be called first in the morning or afternoon so that I don’t need to sit in the court for any longer than necessary.


In relation to Lenar3556’s statement that a “warrant may well be issued”, I’ll settle for anecdotal accounts, has anyone ever heard of a Judge issuing a warrant for a Doctor/Pharmacist after being told by the Hospital that their attendance at work is critical for patient care?

The point I was making is that medical personnel shouldn't reasonably be expected to receive special treatment when it comes to attending court as a witness. Yes, it may be disruptive, but for many other categories of worker this will be no different. What about a childcare operator, a company manager, a solicitor, a self-employed plumber?

It is unusual to see an arrest warrant issued for non-attendance by a witness. And typically courts work with witnesses by adjourning matters until everyone is available, in so far as this is practicable.

I haven’t seen a bench warrant issued for the arrest of a medical witness for non attendance at court, but my experience would be limited. Usually they attend if requested.

There was an occurrence in the west of Ireland a short number of years ago where a GP was asked by a judge to attend to provide evidence in respect of one of his patients. This request was conveyed to the GP by the defending solicitor in an email. The GP responded saying that he would require a fee of €300 to attend. This email was read out in court by the solicitor and was published in the local paper.

The GP was summonsed to attend, and he I understand he did. Pro bono!

Lenar3556

Lenar3556 wrote: »

The point I was making is that medical personnel shouldn't reasonably be expected to receive special treatment when it comes to attending court as a witness. Yes, it may be disruptive, but for many other categories of worker this will be no different. What about a childcare operator, a company manager, a solicitor, a self-employed plumber?

It is unusual to see an arrest warrant issued for non-attendance by a witness. And typically courts work with witnesses by adjourning matters until everyone is available, in so far as this is practicable.

I haven’t seen a bench warrant issued for the arrest of a medical witness for non attendance at court, but my experience would be limited. Usually they attend if requested.

There was an occurrence in the west of Ireland a short number of years ago where a GP was asked by a judge to attend to provide evidence in respect of one of his patients. This request was conveyed to the GP by the defending solicitor in an email. The GP responded saying that he would require a fee of €300 to attend. This email was read out in court by the solicitor and was published in the local paper.

The GP was summonsed to attend, and he I understand he did. Pro bono!

Would a judge consider fixing a tap the same as critical patient care? Interesting insight.

In relation to the GP anecdote, the op has been told by the Hospital that their attendance at work is essential for patient treatment, it is not a dispute over attendance fees.

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

Would a judge consider fixing a tap the same as critical patient care? Interesting insight.

In relation to the GP anecdote, the op has been told by the Hospital that their attendance at work is essential for patient treatment, it is not a dispute over attendance fees.

Nitpick: the OP hasn't said that his work is essential for patient treatment, or that his employer has said that it is. He says he has clinical responsibilities and that attending as a witness would interfere with these. But it doesn't follow that he, or his employer, gets to decide unilaterally whether the clinical responsibilities are so grave that he should fail to comply with a witness summons in order to discharge them.

As others have pointed out, if he fell ill or missed a flight or whatever his employer would have to do something to address his clinical responsibilities, so this isn't an unusual problem. There needs to be a balance struck between the problems that will result if he fails to give evidence versus the problems that will result if arrangements have to be made to adjust or cover for his clinical responsibilities, and the best way to negotiate that balance is by dialogue between those involved. In the end of the day if it can't be resolved by dialogue (or the witness refuses to try) the court will resolve it and the witness's employer will just have to put up with it. But the court will be seriously, seriously annoyed at having to do this.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: the OP hasn't said that his work is essential for patient treatment, or that his employer has said that it is. He says he has clinical responsibilities and that attending as a witness would interfere with these. But it doesn't follow that he, or his employer, gets to decide unilaterally whether the clinical responsibilities are so grave that he should fail to comply with a witness summons in order to discharge them.

As others have pointed out, if he fell ill or missed a flight or whatever his employer would have to do something to address his clinical responsibilities, so this isn't an unusual problem. There needs to be a balance struck between the problems that will result if he fails to give evidence versus the problems that will result if arrangements have to be made to adjust or cover for his clinical responsibilities, and the best way to negotiate that balance is by dialogue between those involved. In the end of the day if it can't be resolved by dialogue (or the witness refuses to try) the court will resolve it and the witness's employer will just have to put up with it. But the court will be seriously, seriously annoyed at having to do this.

Op said it would cause delay in patient treatment, obviously the op is therefore essential for that treatment to proceed. Would you like to be the one to take responsibility for the impact of that delay by requesting a summons be issued?

And you may have a seriously annoyed witness in the box, medical personnel, like most others, do not like court rooms, and like being questioned by Barristers even less, so issuing a warrant immediately, whether subconsciously or not, is likely to stoke hostility.

Again, from my own experience, discussing when the healthcare worker is available, and working with the Hospital would be better than dragging a witness into court in this instance.

Hoboo

Dav010 wrote: »

There was no inference that medical staff think of themselves as too important to attend, I’m not sure where you got that from. A warrant may well be issued, has it ever been in the past for medical staff whose attendance at work was critical? Perhaps you might give an example.

There's probably few if any, nor are there examples of medical staff refusing to attend court and NOT being issued with a warrant. I'd imagine the refusal rate is pretty low if there is one at all.

Hoboo

Hoboo wrote: »

There's probably few if any, nor are there examples of medical staff refusing to attend court and NOT being issued with a warrant. I'd imagine the refusal rate is pretty low if there is one at all.

A double negative is a positive?

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

Op said it would cause delay in patient treatment, obviously the op is therefore essential for that treatment to proceed. Would you like to be the one to take responsibility for the impact of that delay by requesting a summons be issued?

Well, it only causes delay in the treatment if there is no other person in the organisation qualified to provide the treatment.

And, even if it does cause delay, the obvious question is, how serious is that? How badly will the patient's health be compromised if their appointment has to be rescheduled?

These are the kind of issues that should get nutted out in conversations between the witness and the lawyers who want him to testify.

Dav010 wrote: »

And you may have a seriously annoyed witness in the box, medical personnel, like most others, do not like court rooms, and like being questioned by Barristers even less, so issuing a warrant immediately, whether subconsciously or not, is likely to stoke hostility.

Again, from my own experience, discussing when the healthcare worker is available, and working with the Hospital would be better than dragging a witness into court in this instance.

Oh, I agree. Issuing a witness summons is not a lawyer's first resort, for the reasons you point out. Normally they just write to the witness and ask him to make himself available. If he has a problem, he calls them to discuss it, and they work something out.

It's only if the witness replies that it's not convenient and he's not coming that the lawyer will seek a summons. And, even then, the intention is not that the witness will attend under protest and under penalty (which, for the reasons you point out, the lawyer doesn't want); the intention is to persuade the witness to take the matter seriously, so that he will engage with the conversations that are needed, and something can be worked out.

Lenar3556

Dav010 wrote: »

Would a judge consider fixing a tap the same as critical patient care? Interesting insight.

In relation to the GP anecdote, the op has been told by the Hospital that their attendance at work is essential for patient treatment, it is not a dispute over attendance fees.

In my experience, the HSE and voluntary hospital group resources have always been such that staff could be facilitated to attend a court on the rare occasion that it was required.

One might say your mask is starting to slip with the fixing a tap analogy. Plumbers I have no doubt attend to emergencies too. The days of undue reverence to certain professions and these being above the law are bygone times.

Lenar3556

Lenar3556 wrote: »

In my experience, the HSE and voluntary hospital group resources have always been such that staff could be facilitated to attend a court on the rare occasion that it was required.

One might say your mask is starting to slip with the fixing a tap analogy. Plumbers I have no doubt attend to emergencies too. The days of undue reverence to certain professions and these being above the law are bygone times.

I suspect most would be able to differentiate between the emergencies though.

Lenar3556

Dav010 wrote: »

I suspect most would be able to differentiate between the emergencies though.

I would have thought so. And I would expect no less from a healthcare professional.

kirving

Dav010 wrote: »

I suspect most would be able to differentiate between the emergencies though.

It depends on the circumstance, you could pick and choose examples all day.

Would a leaking oxygen supply pipe to an ICU ward be more urgent than a knee surgery?

How about a blocked coolant pipe going to a nuclear reactor vs a follow up to a mole removal?

kirving

kirving wrote: »

It depends on the circumstance, you could pick and choose examples all day.

Would a leaking oxygen supply pipe to an ICU ward be more urgent than a knee surgery?

How about a blocked coolant pipe going to a nuclear reactor vs a follow up to a mole removal?

Which nuclear reactor are you referring to? Yes agreed, the oxygen leak would be a medical emergency,

You are right of course, staff need to be available to maintain all the nuclear reactors in ireland

kirving

Dav010 wrote: »

Which nuclear reactor are you referring to? Yes agreed, the oxygen leak would be a medical emergency,

That's just semantics really, but my (obviously extreme) example could happen anywhere in Europe and have a direct and grave consequences for Ireland.

Equally though, the OP said "clinical responsibilities" for which I assume cover could be planned for in advance. Nothing suggest that emergency medicine is being disrupted.

If the day came and the OP was in fact involved in something urgent, I'm sure that a quick phone call would absolve them of any repercussions for not attending.

Inconspicuous

Deleted User wrote: »

So, I've been called to a "legal case" regarding a clinical matter. I had no involvement in the actual incident but would have been involved in the patient's care in general. Anyway, the HSE said I would not be allowed to take leave off work to attend this (due to clinical responsibilities etc). Received an E-mail (after saying that it was decided by my superiors that it didn't actually relate to me) saying I would be in contempt of court if I didn't attend.

Can a court insist you attend and make you use annual leave to make a statement at a court case?

A court can compel you to attend and in such cases an order will be issued to you. Failure to comply can have serious consequences.

The HSE, may not be able to refuse you going (and certainly not where the court has compelled you to attend). The following circular applies to Civil Servants who are compelled to attend court as a witness. It basically says that they should be given special leave with pay so it wouldn't affect their annual leave. The HSE is generally considered to be the public service though so this circular may not apply. It would be worth checking with your HR department though to see if it does or if there is a similar (more appropriate) circular in affect.

https://hr.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Circular-31-of-2007-Attendance-of-Civil-Servants-in-Court-as-Witnesses.pdf

GM228

Inconspicuous wrote: »

A court can compel you to attend and in such cases an order will be issued to you. Failure to comply can have serious consequences.

The HSE, may not be able to refuse you going (and certainly not where the court has compelled you to attend). The following circular applies to Civil Servants who are compelled to attend court as a witness. It basically says that they should be given special leave with pay so it wouldn't affect their annual leave. The HSE is generally considered to be the public service though so this circular may not apply. It would be worth checking with your HR department though to see if it does or if there is a similar (more appropriate) circular in affect.

https://hr.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Circular-31-of-2007-Attendance-of-Civil-Servants-in-Court-as-Witnesses.pdf

Same applies to HSE staff:-

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/financial%20regulations/

NFR5, 5.14 onwards.

twowheelsonly

Dav010 wrote: »

Would a judge consider fixing a tap the same as critical patient care? .

.

Would a Judge consider a Pharmacist the same as a Trauma Surgeon ?

twowheelsonly

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Would a Judge consider a Pharmacist the same as a Trauma Surgeon ?

Considering a Hospital Pharmacist prepares the drugs given daily to patients in the Hospital, I would be confident that a Judge would consider a Hospital Pharmacist to be pretty important, would you not?

On the other hand, if you are asking whether a Judge can tell the difference between a Pharmacist and a trauma Surgeon, I doubt there are many who confuse the two professions.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

Considering a Hospital Pharmacist prepares the drugs given daily to patients in the Hospital, I would be confident that a Judge would consider a Hospital Pharmacist to be pretty important, would you not?

On the other hand, if you are asking whether a Judge can tell the difference between a Pharmacist and a trauma Surgeon, I doubt there are many who confuse the two professions.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

The Courts view hearing oral testimony as crucial to their work in society. A one off medical procedure isn't going to over-ride the general importance the Court attaches to witnesses attending Court. Whoever the OP is, he or she isn't so important that the Court will forgo the right to call them to give evidence, especially if the OP is given plenty of time to arrange cover.

twowheelsonly

Dav010 wrote: »

Considering a Hospital Pharmacist prepares the drugs given daily to patients in the Hospital, I would be confident that a Judge would consider a Hospital Pharmacist to be pretty important, would you not?

On the other hand, if you are asking whether a Judge can tell the difference between a Pharmacist and a trauma Surgeon, I doubt there are many who confuse the two professions.

I'd be pretty confident that a Judge would consider a Pharmacist to be replaceable / able to be covered far more so than a trauma surgeon.

I'm not doubting their importance in the slightest (far from it in fact...) but as a lay person myself I would consider that it's not as likely that a pharmacists work would be on an 'emergency' basis and I would also imagine that a lot of their work could be done in advance or covered by other pharmacists for a few hours.

I could, of course, be miles off the mark but a hospital being so reliant on the work of one pharmacist doesn't sound like a great set-up to start with.

This has been sorted. Department of health got involved. Don't have to attend.

Lenar3556

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This has been sorted. Department of health got involved. Don't have to attend.

It would be highly unlikely that the Department of Health (or any government department for that matter) would intervene in a subjudice criminal matter.

40+ years ago maybe.

Lenar3556

Lenar3556 wrote: »

It would be highly unlikely that the Department of Health (or any government department for that matter) would intervene in a subjudice criminal matter.

40+ years ago maybe.

Did the op say the case relates to a criminal offence?

Lenar3556

Lenar3556 wrote: »

It would be highly unlikely that the Department of Health (or any government department for that matter) would intervene in a subjudice criminal matter.

40+ years ago maybe.

Most likely a medical negligence case that the SCA have decided to settle?

Peregrinus

Or, the parties to the case (one of whom may be the Dept of Health) have agreed to stipulate the facts that the OP was to testify about, so his testimony is no longer needed.

Could be any number of reasons why the party that wanted to call him as a witness no longer does. But it doesn't affect the question of principle; could they call him as a witness against his will and that of his employer, and could be be compelled to attend? Answer: Yes. There could be some flexibility over when he'd have to attend; that would have to be negotiated. But he couldn't make the problem go away by refusing to negotiate.

beachhead

Cannot believe that a professionsal would not understand the legal requirement to abide by a witness summons.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058197969/medical-case-unable-to-attend-due-to-clinical-responsibilities

Check the letter summoning you. have seen many solicitors letters written advising one to attend court ( in the interest of solicitors client of course) but they read like a court summons but is not.. ie its from a solicitor and not the court or registrar. these you can safely ignore. MAke an enquiry with the registrar of the court to confirm