Return to Home Page


 

Findings

Charge Characteristics

Additional Orders

Commonly
Cited Cases


Findings

 

 

CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND THAT CONDUCT REFLECTS ADVERSELY ON THE PRACTITIONER'S FITNESS TO PRACTISE MEDICINE

97/1C

Not guilty

97/5C

Not guilty
Appeal by the CAC discontinued.
97/8C Guilty 97/11C Not guilty
97/12C Not guilty 97/13C Guilty
97/14C Not guilty 98/19D Guilty
98/20C Not guilty 98/25C Not guilty
CAC appealed the Decision to the District Court - appeal upheld - sent back to the Tribunal for reconsideration  CAC v Mantell (District Court, Auckland Registry, 7 May 1999, NP 4533/98)
CAC withdrew charge.  District Court issued a minute setting aside the direction in the Appeal judgment.
98/26C Not guilty 98/27C Guilty
98/29C Guilty 98/30C Not guilty
98/36C Guilty (3 charges) 98/37C Not guilty
98/38C Guilty 99/43C Guilty
Application in District Court for leave to appeal out of time filed by Doctor.  Application denied  (R F Phipps v The Medical Council of NZ, (District Court, Auckland, CIV-2002-004-3018, 9 March 2004, Doogue DCJ))
The District Court ordered judgment of $38,583.66 for the Medical Council.  (Phipps v Medical Council of NZ) District Court, Auckland, CIV 2002-004-1313, 19 May 2004, Joyce DCJ)
99/44D Guilty 99/45D Guilty
99/46D Not guilty 99/48D Guilty (majority decision)
Both parties withdrew appeals
99/49D Guilty 99/53C Not guilty
Appeal to the District Court by CAC withdrawn
99/54C Guilty 00/56C Guilty
00/69C Guilty
An appeal was filed in the District Court on behalf of Dr Parry.  District Court upheld Tribunal Decision (Parry v MPDT (District Court, Auckland, NP 880/02, 2 July 2003, Doogue DCJ))
An appeal against the District Court decision was filed in the High Court on behalf of the Doctor.  The High Court upheld the appeal.  It dismissed the charge and quashed the Tribunal order for costs (Parry v MPDT and CAC (High Court, Auckland, CIV-2003-404-4107, 2 June 2004, Heath J))
01/71D Guilty
01/73D Not guilty 01/75D Guilty
01/78C Guilty 01/80C Guilty
Doctor appealed substantive and penalty Decisions to District Court.
CAC applied for a change of venue for the appeal hearing - application denied (Parry v MPDT Auckland District Court, 7 October 2002, PF Barber DCJ, 1749/02)
District Court upheld substantive appeal - Tribunal finding set aside - (Parry v MPDT, (Auckland District Court, 15 August 2003, Doogue DCJ))
01/83C Guilty
Application to call further evidence at the Appeal granted F v MPDT (District Court, Auckland, Doogue DCJ, NP No. 881/02, 15 August 2002)
Decision to allow further evidence upheld CAC v F (High Court, Auckland, Hansen J, AP79-SW02, 2 September 2002)
District Court set aside some of the findings of the Tribunal on some particulars but upheld overall finding of conduct unbecoming.  The Judge set aside the penalty decision and imposed no penalty F v MPDT (District Court, Auckland, Hubble DCJ, NP 881/02, 3 September 2002)
High Court upheld in all respects the District Court Decision F v MPDT (High Court, Auckland, AP 113/02, Frater J, 20 November 2003)
Leave granted to Doctor to appeal High Court Decision to Court of Appeal (F v MPDT & CAC ( High Court, Auckland, AP 113/02, Frater J, 17 May 2004))
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.  The finding of conduct unbecoming and the order of costs against the Doctor were quashed.    (F v MPDT (Court of Appeal, CA 213/04, 4 May 2005, Anderson P, William Young and O'Regan JJ)).
01/84C Guilty (3 charges one of those was a majority decision)
CAC appealed Decision - appeal upheld in respect of charge relating to Ms D and Mrs S - referred matter back to the Tribunal in respect of charge relating to Ms W (CAC v Dr B Ford (District Court, Wellington, MA 103/02, 1 May 2003, Thompson DCJ))
01/85D Guilty 01/88C Guilty (4 charges)
02/90D Not guilty 02/91D Not guilty
02/94D Guilty 04/119C Guilty
Doctor appealed substantive and penalty Decisions to the District Court.
District Court upheld substantive appeal - findings set aside and penalty orders were quashed (Dr C v CAC (District Court, Wellington, CIV 2004-085-1577, Thomas J, 2 September 2005))
04/124C Not guilty    

Click to return to top

 

 

 

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

97/1C

Not guilty

97/3C

Guilty
97/7C Guilty 97/8C Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine
97/9C Guilty 97/10C Not guilty - non culpable error
97/12C Not guilty 97/13C Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine
97/17D Guilty (majority decision) 98/18D Not guilty
98/19D Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine 98/22D Not guilty
98/28C Guilty 98/33C Not guilty
98/34C Guilty 98/35D Not guilty
98/36C Guilty (3 particulars) 98/38C Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine
99/39C Guilty
The District Court remitted the issue of penalty back to the Tribunal.  Chan v MPDT (Auckland District Court, NP 2673/00, Joyce DCJ)
99/42D Not guilty (majority decision)
Tribunal decision upheld:   Director of Proceedings v C F Wakefield (Wellington District Court, MA No. 189/99, 28 March 2000, Ongley DCJ) upheld the Tribunal Decision.
District Court decision confirmed:  Director of Proceedings v C F Wakefield (High Court, Wellington, AP 74/00, 17 October 2001, Heron J) confirmed the District Court Decision
99/47C Guilty
Tribunal Decision upheld Wislang v MPDT (Auckland District Court, 27/4/00,  N.P. No. 4554/99 Cadenhead DCJ) 
Application for judicial review of Tribunal Decision dismissed Wislang v Medical Council of NZ & Ors (Wellington High Court, 21/6/2001, CP 219/00, Wild J) 
Decision of the High Court upheld Wislang v Medical Council of NZ & Ors (Court of Appeal, 4/3/02, CA 174/01, Blanchard J) 
Leave granted to appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the Privy Council Wislang v Medical Council of NZ & Ors (Court of Appeal, 27/4/02, CA 174/01, Blanchard J)
99/48D Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine (majority decision)
Both parties withdrew appeals
99/49D Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine 99/52D Guilty
99/54C Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine 00/58D Not guilty
00/60D Guilty 00/61C Not guilty
CAC appealed Decision:  Appeal dismissed (CAC v Dr Ford (District Court, Wellington, MA 103/2, 1 May 2003, Thompson DCJ))
00/66D Not guilty 00/67C Guilty
Dr Chan made an interlocutory application to stay his suspension from medical practice.  The District Court denied the application (Chan v MPDT (Auckland District Court, NP 1538/01, 19 June 2001, Roderick DCJ))
Appeal of Tribunal Decision dismissed by the District Court (Chan v Complaints Assessment Committee (Auckland District Court, NP 1538/01, 8 August 2001, Doogue DCJ))
00/68C Not guilty 01/70D Guilty       
01/74C Guilty 01/76D Guilty
01/77D Not guilty (majority decision)
The District Court upheld an appeal by the Director of Proceedings (DP v Dr McKenzie (District Court, Auckland, NP 762/02, 14 August 2002, Doogue DCJ)). 
Dr McKenzie appealed District Court Decision - High Court upheld the District Court findings that an offence had been committed but substituted a finding of conduct unbecoming instead of the District Court finding of professional misconduct (McKenzie v DP and Anor (High Court, Auckland Registry, CIV 2002-404-153-02, 12 June 2003, Venning J))
01/79C Not guilty
01/80C Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine
Doctor appealed substantive and penalty Decisions to District Court.
CAC applied for a change of venue for the appeal hearing - application denied (Parry v MPDT Auckland District Court, 7 October 2002, PF Barber DCJ, 1749/02)
01/81C Not guilty
Complaints Assessment Committee appealed Decision - appeal dismissed (CAC v Parry (District Court, Auckland, MA No. 64/02, 16 May 2003, Hubble DCJ))
01/82D

 

Not guilty 01/83C Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine
Application to call further evidence at the Appeal granted F v MPDT (District Court, Auckland, Doogue DCJ, NP No. 881/02, 15 August 2002)
Decision to allow further evidence upheld CAC v F (High Court, Auckland, Hansen J, AP79-SW02, 2 September 2002)
District Court set aside some of the findings of the Tribunal on some particulars but upheld overall finding of conduct unbecoming.  The Judge set aside the penalty decision and imposed no penalty F v MPDT (District Court, Auckland, Hubble DCJ, NP 881/02, 3 September 2002)
High Court upheld in all respects the District Court Decision F v MPDT (High Court, Auckland, AP 113/02, Frater J, 20 November 2003)
Leave granted to Doctor to appeal High Court Decision to Court of Appeal (F v MPDT & CAC ( High Court, Auckland, AP 113/02, Frater J, 17 May 2004))
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.  The finding of conduct unbecoming and the order of costs against the Doctor were quashed.  (F v MPDT (Court of Appeal, CA 213/04, 4 May 2005, Anderson P, William Young and O'Regan JJ)).
01/84C Not guilty (1 charge)
Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine (1 charge)
CAC appealed Decision - appeal upheld in respect of charge relating to Ms D and Mrs S - referred matter back to the Tribunal in respect of charge relating to Ms W (CAC v Dr B Ford (District Court, Wellington, MA 103/02, 1 May 2003, Thompson DCJ))
01/86D Guilty
Doctor appealed the Decision and the Penalty Decision to the District Court. 
District Court upheld Tribunal findings.  Further it upheld the penalty but reduced the fine.  Perera v MPDT (District Court, Whangarei, MA 94/02, Hubble DCJ, 10 June 2004)
01/88C Guilty (3 charges) 02/89D Guilty (2 charges)
Doctor has appealed the Decision and the Penalty Decision to the District Court
02/96C Guilty
Doctor appealed the substantive and Penalty Decisions to the District Court.
The District Court upheld the finding of professional misconduct but reduced the fine imposed by the Tribunal (R W Robertson v CAC, (District Court Christchurch, CIV-2004-009-1784, 28 November 2005, Moran J))
02/97C Guilty
03/99D Guilty 03/100D Guilty
The Doctor appealed the substantive Decision to the District Court.  The Court upheld the findings of fact of the Tribunal, but allowed the appeal to the extent that it found the Doctor guilty of conduct unbecoming rather than professional misconduct Dr X v Director of Proceedings (District Court, Wellington, CIV 2003-085-1181, 8 December 2004, Kelly DCJ)
03/101D Guilty
The Doctor appealed the substantive Decision to the District Court.  The Court upheld the appeal.  The Court reversed the Tribunal findings of professional misconduct and quashed the penalty order.  (A F Hauptfleisch v Director of Proceedings (District Court, Wellington, CIV-2004-085-151, 18 August 2004, Tuohy DCJ))
03/102D Not guilty
03/104D Not guilty 03/108D Guilty
The Doctor appealed the substantive and penalty Decisions to the District Court.  The District Court allowed the appeal.  The finding of the Tribunal was reversed and the Doctor was found not guilty.  Accordingly, the penalty Decision was also reversed.  (Dr I v Director of Proceedings (District Court, Napier, DIV 2004-041-206, 15 September 2004, Rea DCJ))
03/109D Guilty 03/110D Not guilty
03/113C Guilty 03/115C Guilty
The Doctor appealed the substantive and penalty Decisions to the District Court. The Court allowed the appeal on all but one of the particulars. The Court reversed the Tribunal finding of professional misconduct but found the Doctor guilty of conduct unbecoming. The fine imposed by the Tribunal was reduced and the judge recorded his view that conditions should never have been imposed. (Doctor T v CAC (District Court Wellington, CIV-2005-085-355, & Broadmore DCJ, 6 October 2008))
03/117C Not guilty 04/118D Guilty (majority decision)
The Doctor appealed the substantive Decision to the District Court.  The Court allowed the appeal to the extent that it found the Doctor guilty of conduct unbecoming and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine instead of professional misconduct.  (Dr J v Director of Proceedings, (District Court, Auckland, CIV 04/004/1682, 6 February 2005, Doogue J))
04/122C Guilty 04/123D Guilty
The Doctor appealed the substantive and penalty Decisions to the District Court.  The Court allowed the appeal in part.  It upheld the finding of professional misconduct and all the penalty orders except the order for supervision which was cancelled (Marks v Director of Proceedings (District Court, Wellington, CIV-2005-001181, 25 September 2007, Broadmore DCJ))
05/128C Guilty    

Click to return to top

 

 

 

DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT

97/7C

Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct

97/8C

Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine
97/9C Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct 97/12C Not guilty
97/15C Charged with disgraceful conduct in a professional respect but the charge was laid as a result of a conviction.  The Tribunal held the circumstances of the conviction reflected adversely on the doctors fitness to practise medicine 97/16D Guilty
Doctor appealed Tribunal's order as to costs - application granted in part J Nealie v DP (District Court, Auckland, NP 25653/98, 18 November 1998)
97/17D Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct (majority decision) 98/24C Guilty
Doctor appealed Decision on costs to District Court - Appeal withdrawn
98/28C Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct 98/36C Guilty (2 particulars of 1 charge and another complete charge)
99/39C Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct
The District Court remitted the issue of penalty back to the Tribunal.  Chan v MPDT (Auckland District Court, NP 2673/00, Joyce DCJ)
99/44D Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine.
00/57D Not guilty 00/61C Not guilty
CAC appealed Decision:  Appeal dismissed (CAC v Dr Ford (District Court, Wellington, MA 103/2, 1 May 2003, Thompson DCJ))
00/62D Guilty
Parry v MPDT
(Auckland District Court, NP No. 4412/00, Hubble DCJ) held that the name of the dissenting Tribunal member in the Decision be known.  Decision upheld by High Court MPDT v Parry (High Court, Auckland, AP No. 49/SW01, 11 May 2001)
Parry v MPDT
(Auckland District Court, NP 4412/00, Judgment dated 30/5/01, Hubble DCJ) upheld the Tribunal's finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect but allowed the appeal on penalty. 
DP v Parry and MPDT
(Auckland High Court, AP 61-SW01, 15 October 2001 Paterson J) confirmed the penalty decision of the District Court.
00/65D Not guilty (majority decision)
Appeal from the Tribunal Decision filed by the Director of Proceedings dismissed (DP v Dr Wiles (District Court, Wellington, MA 69/01, 24 January 2002, Lee DCJ)). 
Appeal from the District Court judgment filed by the Director of Proceedings dismissed (DP v Dr Wiles (High Court, Wellington, AP 33/02, 24 November 2002, France J))
01/72D Guilty 01/74C Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct
01/78C Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine  01/87D Guilty
01/88C Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct (2 charges)
Not guilty but guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine (2 charges)
Not guilty (2 charges)
Complaints Assessment Committee appealed Decision - appeal upheld.  Court held guilty of disgraceful conduct on the two charges the Tribunal found not guilty.  Court referred two matters back to the Tribunal in respect of penalty (CAC v Dr W Chan (District Court, Auckland, No. 2942/02, 20 March 2003, Tompkins DCJ))
02/89D Guilty (1 charge)
Doctor has appealed the Decision and the Penalty Decision to the District Court
02/93C Guilty 02/95C

 

Guilty
CAC appealed the penalty decision of Tribunal and the order for name suppression.
District Court granted appeal in regard to name suppression and set aside the Tribunal's order to suppress the Doctor's name.
The Doctor CAC v Dr C (District Court, CIV-2010-009-003018, Doherty DCJ, 13 May 2011) has appealed to the High Court the District Court decision to lift name suppression.
02/97C Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct 03/99D Not guilty
03/109D Not guilty but guilty of professional misconduct 03/116D Guilty
The Doctor has appealed the substantive and penalty Decisions to the District Court.
Pending the substantive appeal, the penalty Decision stayed by order of the District Court and a condition was placed on the Doctor's practice (Dr xx v Director of Proceedings (District Court, Auckland, CIV-2004-004-1631, Joyce QC DCJ, 23 July 2004)).  The Doctor is not to examine any patients (save in circumstances of sheer emergency) except in the presence of a chaperone.
The District Court upheld the Doctor's appeal.  The Court quashed the Tribunal's findings and penalty.  (Dr X v Director of Proceedings (District Court, Auckland, CIV-2004-004-1613, Hubble DCJ, 23 Feb 2007))
04/120C Not guilty 05/127C Guilty
       

Click to return to top

 

 

 

CONVICTIONS - CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES REFLECT ADVERSELY ON THE DOCTOR'S FITNESS TO PRACTISE MEDICINE

97/4C

Guilty
Section 229A Crimes Act 1961

97/15C

Guilty
Section 135(a) Crimes Act 1961
Section 134(2)(a) Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b) Crimes Act 1961
98/21C Guilty
Section 128 Crimes Act 1961
Section 129 Crimes Act 1961
Section 140 Crimes Act 1961
98/31C

 

Guilty
Section 229(A)(b) Crimes Act 1961
Section 265 Crimes Act 1961
Section 117(d) Crimes Act 1961
99/40C Guilty
Section 128 and 128B Crimes Act 1961
Section 132(2)(A) Crimes Act 1961
Section 135(a) Crimes Act 1961
Section 133(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961
Section 311 and 133(a) Crimes Act 1961
99/50C Guilty
Section 246(2)(a) Crimes Act 1961
Section 265 Crimes Act 1961
99/51C Guilty
Section 229(A)(b) Crimes Act 1961
00/63C Guilty
Section 11(1)(B) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Section 56(1) Land Transport Act 1998
00/64C Guilty
Section 128 Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1) Crimes Act 1961
Section 135A Crimes Act 1961
02/92C Guilty
Section 151 Crimes Act 1961
Section 20(2) Medicines Act 1981 x 2
An appeal on behalf of the Doctor to the District Court, against the Tribunal Decision, was discontinued
03/103C Not guilty
Section 58(1) and (2) Land Transport Act 1998
03/111C Guilty
Section 171 Crimes Act 1961
Section 18(2) Medicines Act 1981 x 6
Sections 20(2) and 20(4) Medicines Act 1981
Section 57(1)(e) Medicines Act 1981
Section 18(1) Medicines Act 1981 x 6
Section 57(1)(d) and (f) Medicines Act 1981
Section 57(1)(d) Medicines Act 1981 x 3
03/114C Guilty
Section 229A Crimes Act 1961 x 28
Sections 115, 116 and 117 Crimes Act 1961 x 6
04/121C Guilty
Section 135(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961 x 3
05/125C Guilty
Section 134(1) Crimes Act 1961 x 2
Section 134(2)(a) Crimes Act 1961 x 4
   

Click to return to top

 

 

 

CHARGE WITHDRAWN

97/2C

Application granted by Deputy Chair of Tribunal

97/6C 

Application granted by Chair of Tribunal
98/32C Application granted by Chair of Tribunal 99/55C Application granted by Tribunal Decision
98/59C  Application granted by Tribunal Decision 03/98C Application granted by Tribunal Decision
03/105C Application granted by Tribunal Decision 03/106C Application granted by Tribunal Decision
03/112C Application granted by Tribunal Decision 05/126C Application granted by Tribunal Decision
 

 

 

 

CHARGE STAYED

99/41C

Two charges stayed by High Court (E v MPDT (Wellington High Court, CP 190/97, 12 April 2001, Goddard J))

 

 


 



Site Disclaimer
Designed and built by Infinity Solutions
Download Adobe Acrobat Reader to read documents on this site.