The High Court has ordered the suspension of a Wicklow-based GP in order to protect the public over concerns about her prescribing of large volumes of controlled drugs to patients.

The president of the High Court, Judge David Barniville, granted an application by the Medical Council to suspend the registration of Regine Grah and to prohibit her from practising medicine while a fitness-to-practise process arising out of a complaint against her is under way.

Judge Barniville granted an application by the Medical Council last week that Dr Grah could now be named on grounds that it was in the interests of protecting the public and patient safety.

The court heard evidence that the GP was still continuing to practise medicine and write prescriptions, while also not having professional indemnity insurance, despite orders suspending her being issued on July 17.

Dr Grah, a native of Côte d’Ivoire, qualified as a doctor in Romania in January 2018 and has been registered to work in Ireland since February 2018.

She has been operating her own private general practice at the Silver Oak Family Practice in Ballywaltrim Heights, Bray, Co Wicklow for the past year.

The court heard concerns about Dr Grah were brought to the attention of the Medical Council between March and June 2026 by three different pharmacies in Wicklow and south Dublin about her prescribing practices.

A formal complaint made by one pharmacist from Bray alleged the GP was prescribing high volumes and large quantities of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (types of sedatives). without any clear treatment plan for reduction or withdrawal.

It was claimed that Dr Grah had sent the same prescription to multiple pharmacies which created the opportunity for patients to obtain the same medication more than once.

The GP was also accused of not being responsive to concerns raised by pharmacists when they queried her prescriptions.

While the pharmacist said that any individual incident might not appear significant, the repeated occurrence of such issues on a daily basis had formed a more “concerning picture.”

The court heard 14 patients were being prescribed repeated prescriptions for benzodiazepines and Z-drugs.

A review by the Medical Council of the GP’s prescribing pattern found three patients with the same surname and address were repeatedly prescribed Xanax and diazepam in substantial quantities between December 2025 and February 2026.

One of those patients was prescribed a total of 224 diazepam tablets and 224 Xanax tablets over that period.

A second pharmacist also raised concerns with the Medical Council in May 2026 about what he considered inappropriate prescribing by Dr Grah.

He claimed it involved high-dose prescribing, large quantities at one time to individuals with substance abuse issues which were also inconsistent with safe prescribing guidance.

Another pharmacist contacted the regulatory body in June 2026 claiming the GP’s prescribing habits did not meet the ethical and clinical requirements for appropriate patient care.

The Medical Council subsequently sought a High Court hearing on June 26 at which it claimed an immediate risk of harm to the public existed due to Dr Grah’s pattern of high-volume and repeat prescribing of controlled drugs over a short period of time without a clear and compelling explanation.

Dr Grah replied that certain patients were vulnerable and had been taking medications before attending her practice.

She claimed hospitals and psychiatrists were aware of what she was prescribing and her intention was to wean patients off medications gradually.

Dr Grah had been legally represented at an earlier hearing last month when the case was heard in camera but is no longer represented after an issue arose about her medical insurance.

Granting the application sought by the Medical Council, Judge Barniville said there were significant question marks about Dr

Grah’s professional indemnity insurance.

The judge said the issue about her insurance cover alone would be a sufficient basis for making the orders.

He said there was no doubt that the allegations about the GP’s prescribing practices were serious and they had been backed up by strong evidence.

The judge said he was satisfied that consideration of protecting the public significantly outweighed Dr Grah’s constitutional rights to a good name, reputation and livelihood.

However, he stated he would include a provision in his orders that would allow the GP to apply to the High Court to have them set aside.