Return to Home Page



Charge Characteristics

Additional Orders

Cited Cases


Decision No: 05/125C
Practitioner: Dr Matthew James Boyd
Charge Characteristics: Sexual Misconduct
Additional Orders: None
Decision: 05125cfindings


A Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC) alleged Dr Boyd had been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 months or longer, and that the circumstances of the offending reflected adversely on Dr Boyd’s fitness to practice medicine.

On 18 May 2004, Dr Boyd pleaded guilty in the Wellington District Court to the following offences:

  • Two charges under s134(1) Crimes Act 1961 of having sexual intercourse with two girls aged between 12 and 16;
  • Four charges under s 134(2)(a) Crimes Act 1961 of indecently assaulting girls aged between 12 and 16.

The Solicitor General successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal the original sentence of 2 years imprisonment, which was increased to a total of 3 years imprisonment.



At the time of his offending Dr Boyd was a registered medical practitioner.

In February 2001 Dr Boyd made email contact with a 14 year old girl. Shortly after this he met her and on the 16 February 2001 Dr Boyd had sexual intercourse with this victim. He continued to have a sexual relationship with her through 2001.

In March 2001, shortly after making contact through an internet chat room Dr Boyd met in person another victim and began a sexual relationship with her that lasted about 11 months. She told Dr Boyd she was 15 years old and he told her he was a doctor.

In April 2001 Dr Boyd met another 15 year old victim through the internet. He arranged to meet the girl at her home when her parents were not there. He fondled the girl’s breast and touched the outside of her genitalia. The victim described the assault as “unexpected and unwelcome”. In addition, Dr Boyd sent her an email attaching pictures of him holding his erect penis in his hand. He also sent a video clip of him masturbating

On 2 September 2001 Dr Boyd met another of his victims through an internet chat room. He met her in person on only one occasion during which time he digitally penetrated the girl’s vagina. The 13 year old girl was frightened by this indecent assault.

In February 2002 Dr Boyd made contact with a 14 year old girl through the internet. He knew how old she was and he told her he was 25 years old and a doctor. She went with another girl to Dr Boyd’s apartment where Dr Boyd plied them with alcohol. Later that night a small party developed at his apartment during which he groped the breast of this victim. A 15 year old male at the party intervened and prevented any continuation of the offending.

Dr Boyd notified the Tribunal in writing he accepted the charge.



The Tribunal had no hesitation in concluding Dr Boyd’s offending did reflect adversely on his fitness to practice medicine. The reasons for this conclusion were as follows:

  • Dr Boyd’s behaviour was predatory.
  • Dr Boyd traded on the fact he was a doctor.
  • The offending was sustained.
  • There was a significant age difference between Dr Boyd and his victims.
  • His offending had a significant impact on his victims.



The Tribunal was concerned that, notwithstanding his honesty in admitting his guilt, Dr Boyd did not appear to have displayed insight into his own emotional and possible psychological/psychiatric shortcomings. He rationalised his offending by referring to stresses external to him and did not show any appreciation of his own deficiencies.

The Tribunal found Dr Boyd’s behaviour was so far removed from the standards expected of a medical practitioner that his name must be removed from the register. In addition the Tribunal marked its disgust at his behaviour by formally censuring him.

The Tribunal made no order as to costs, due to Dr Boyd’s poor financial position.

The Tribunal ordered that a summary of the decision be published in the New Zealand Medical Journal.