Balancing Deference and Proportionality in Regulatory Sanctions: RS v Health and Social Care Professionals Council

Introduction

RS v Health and Social Care Professionals Council [2025] IEHC 267 is a High Court decision under section 69 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 (as amended), in which Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins considered the appropriateness of cancellation of registration as a social worker following findings of professional misconduct and poor professional performance.

Parties:
Applicant: R.S., a social worker registered with CORU.
Respondent: Health and Social Care Professionals Council (“CORU”).

Background & Key Issues:
R.S. was accused of forming an inappropriate sexual/emotional relationship with a vulnerable former patient under his care at Cork University Hospital. After a fitness-to-practise inquiry, CORU’s Professional Conduct Committee recommended cancellation of his registration and a prohibition on re-registration for 18 months. The Council adopted that recommendation. R.S. appealed, arguing that the sanction was unduly severe and that his cooperation, unblemished 24-year career and an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis shortly before the misconduct warranted a lesser penalty.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court reviewed the statutory framework, the principles governing sanction appeals, and the doctrine of curial deference to a regulator’s expertise. While affirming that substantial deference is generally owed to CORU’s reasoned sanction decisions, the Court found errors in the reasoning of both the Professional Conduct Committee and the Council:

They failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s ASD diagnosis and the accompanying psychologist’s report as mitigating factors;
They treated the diagnosis as irrelevant and dismissed the possibility of workable conditions without adequate explanation;
They spoke of “harm caused” to the patient when no actual harm evidence was before them;
They heavily relied on an unparticularised allegation of “cover up,” which was never charged.

On appeal, notwithstanding the seriousness of the misconduct, the Court held that a lengthy suspension with conditions (supervision, retraining, psychological follow-up) would adequately protect the public, uphold professional standards and maintain confidence. The ultimate sanction of cancellation was therefore set aside and replaced by a conditional suspension order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment surveys a line of Irish and UK authorities on sanction-only appeals:

Medical Council v. Murphy (High Court, unreported, 1994): four principles of regulatory sanction—deterrence, professional example, public protection, leniency.
Hermann v. Medical Council [2010] IEHC 414: High Court should treat regulator’s sanction decision with respect and alter it only for specific reasons.
Dowling v. An Bord Altranais [2017] IEHC 62: deference to the regulator unless sanction is “clearly disproportionate or legally unsound.”
Veterinary Council v. Brennan [2020] IEHC 655: court must give weight to regulator’s specialist knowledge but may correct errors on mitigation or causation.
Recent Irish decisions in the solicitors’ context—Law Society v. D’Alton [2019] IEHC 177, Walsh [2023] IEHC 165, Corrigan [2023] IEHC 389—emphasise protection of public, punishment, maintenance of reputation, proportionality and full consideration of mitigation.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in several stages:

Statutory framework: Section 66–67 empowers CORU to impose sanctions; section 69 permits an appeal to the High Court “making any order it considers appropriate.”
Principles on sanction: The four “Murphy” principles were endorsed, and recent jurisprudence confirms the regulator’s broad expertise in sanctioning but also preserves the Court’s own evaluative role.
Doctrine of curial deference: Substantial respect is due to CORU’s well-reasoned sanction decisions, but not absolute; the Court must form its own view on proportionality and mitigation.
Analysis of CORU’s reasoning:
- CORU discounted the ASD diagnosis and psychological report simply because no new expert evidence was adduced post-offence.
- CORU ruled conditions “would involve too much guesswork” without articulating why a structured package (supervision, reflective practice, re-education) could not work.
- CORU referred to “harm caused” to the patient absent any evidence of actual harm, overstating the record.
- CORU emphasised an uncharged allegation of “cover up.”
Court’s own assessment: Having considered the applicant’s unblemished career, full cooperation, early admissions of misconduct, genuine remorse, ASD diagnosis and psychological difficulties (sleep, anxiety, social communication deficits), and his stated willingness to engage with supervision and therapy, the High Court concluded that a conditional suspension would satisfy all regulatory objectives.

Impact

This judgment clarifies and reinforces several important points for future regulatory appeals:

Mitigation & Personal Circumstances: Registrants’ medical or psychological diagnoses, even pre-dating misconduct, must be properly weighed in sanction decisions if relevant to the cause or prevention of recurrence.
Structured Conditions: Where registrants fully cooperate, express genuine insight and are open to supervision, a tailored regime of conditions may be preferable to erasure or outright cancellation—even in serious boundary-breach cases.
Reasoning Requirements: Regulators must give clear, concise reasons when rejecting lesser sanctions, explaining why conditions or suspension would not suffice.
Deference with Safeguards: While the High Court should respect regulators’ expertise, it will intervene where proportionality or reasoned analysis is deficient.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Curial Deference

Courts generally respect specialist regulators’ sanction decisions because regulators have deep sectoral knowledge and precedent awareness. However, judges still conduct an independent proportionality assessment and correct legal or logical errors.

2. Professional Misconduct vs Poor Performance

Professional misconduct means conduct falling well below ethical or professional standards (e.g., boundary breaches, deception). Poor performance addresses inadequate competence or care (e.g., record-keeping failings). Sanctions address both deterrence and remediation.

3. Proportionality in Regulatory Sanction

Regulators balance multiple objectives—public protection, professional reputation, deterrence, registrant rehabilitation—when choosing a penalty “no more punitive than necessary.”

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in RS v Health and Social Care Professionals Council establishes that, even in serious boundary-breach cases involving vulnerable patients, cancellation of registration is not invariably the only adequate sanction. A registrant’s long unblemished service, early and full admissions, genuine remorse, and significant personal or health-related factors (such as an ASD diagnosis) can tip the balance in favor of a structured suspension with conditions. Regulators must give clear reasons when rejecting such alternatives and ensure all relevant personal circumstances are fairly addressed.

This decision will guide both regulators and registrants on the analytical rigor and transparency required in sanction proceedings, the proper scope of curial deference, and the importance of holistic proportionality in professional disciplinary regimes.