Charge

On 17 December 2021 by audio visual link the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) heard a charge laid by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Medical Council of New Zealand, against Dr A, registered medical practitioner (the doctor).

The charge alleged that:

On 29 March 2021, Dr A was convicted in the Auckland District court, having pleaded guilty to two representative charges of indecent assault pursuant to section 135 of the Crimes Act 1961, being an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years; namely:

1. between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009, Dr A indecently assaulted Ms B; and
2. between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009, Dr A indecently assaulted Ms C.

The convictions particularised above either separately or cumulatively:

1. amount to professional misconduct in that the convictions have brought or are likely to bring discredit to the medical profession pursuant to section 100(1)(b) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (the Act), or
2. reflect adversely on Dr A’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner pursuant to section 100(1)(c) of the Act.

The doctor accepted the charge and the hearing proceeded on the basis of an agreed summary of facts.

Background

Two teenage family members moved in with the doctor for the time they were attending University.  The doctor was employed as a paediatric registrar.

Initially the doctor began requesting hugs from both victims.  This continued for about a year.  The doctor’s behaviour towards the family members progressed to inappropriate touching. 

The doctor was subsequently charged by Police and he pleaded guilty to two representative charges of indecent assault.

While the doctor accepted that his behaviour was inappropriate, he did not accept that the conduct was sexual.

Finding

The Tribunal found the charge established and that it was of a serious nature warranting disciplinary sanction.  It noted that it was “difficult to imagine any conviction

for indecent assault that would not reflect adversely on a health practitioner’s fitness

to practise.”

The Tribunal remained concerned with the doctor’s lack of understanding and true acceptance of his actions.  Patients place significant trust in members of the medical profession.  They tell health practitioners personal information that they might share only with those very close to them, or indeed no-one at all.  They allow health practitioners, who are often strangers to them, to touch them and their children, often on, or close to, very personal areas of the body.  Conduct such as that of the doctor erodes not only the trust that can be placed in him as a doctor, but the trust that can be placed in the medical profession by the public at large.

Penalty

The Tribunal ordered:

• cancellation of registration and the doctor may not apply for registration for three years from the date of the decision;
• censure;
• conditions to be satisfied before applying for re-registration;
• 40% contribution to the costs of the PCC and the Tribunal amounting to $9,150.25

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.