Northern Ireland

Dr Watt patients mount legal bid to get case aired in public

Danielle O'Neill, who was a patient of Dr Watt, at the High Court in Belfast. Picture by Hugh Russell
Danielle O'Neill, who was a patient of Dr Watt, at the High Court in Belfast. Picture by Hugh Russell Danielle O'Neill, who was a patient of Dr Watt, at the High Court in Belfast. Picture by Hugh Russell

FORMER patients of a Belfast neurologist are set to argue that a tribunal had no jurisdiction to allow him voluntary removal from the medical register, the High Court heard.

The challenge to granting Dr Michael Watt's application has widened after new proceedings were lodged by another of those he treated.

Danielle O'Neill (39) is seeking to judicially review the decision she claims unfairly prevented scrutiny of a clinician at the centre of Northern Ireland's biggest ever patient recall.

A judge indicated she may have enhanced status in proceedings brought against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).

Last month the oversight body granted Dr Watt's application for voluntarily erasure from the register.

The controversial decision means he will not face a public hearing into concerns about his work.

His inability to engage with a fitness to practice assessment and the potential risk of suicide were cited among the reasons.

A Belfast man referred to Dr Watt back in 2016 has already commenced a case against the MPTS for allowing his removal.

Michael McHugh (51) claims it was an unjust and unlawful move which denied public examination of the standard of medical treatment.

Now further proceedings have been lodged on behalf of Ms O'Neill, alleging a breach of human rights.

The court heard her challenge also involves a claim there was no jurisdiction because of how Dr Watt's application was put before the MPTS.

Mr Justice Colton said he may select one of the former patients as a test case to explore the legal arguments.

Acknowledging that Ms O'Neill was among a group of patients initially referred to the tribunal, he added: "That might give her some enhanced status in terms of standing."

Counsel for Dr Watt, David Dunlop QC, backed suggestions that only one of the challenges should be advanced.

Adjourning proceedings to next month, the judge told Mr Dunlop: "Come what may, you will have to deal with the case made in relation to the jurisdictional points."

Dr Watt has been at the centre of medical scrutiny since thousands of patients were recalled in 2018.

Amid concerns about misdiagnosis of brain conditions, a number of inquiries are taking place into his work.

But Ms O'Neill insists that the MPTS hearing represented the only chance to look into the neurologist's clinical practice.

Outside court the Belfast woman said: "We are absolutely devastated by what has happened, and feel it's totally unfair that the mental health of Dr Watt has taken precedence over the mental health of thousands of patients.

"It's also totally unfair that the MPTS took a decision in private which could set a precedent for fitness to practice hearings in future."

Her solicitor, Claire McKeegan of Phoenix Law, added: "They have taken away the only opportunity to get justice and answers over alleged clinical failings."