|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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| 99/49D | Guilty | 99/53C | Not guilty Appeal to the District Court by CAC withdrawn |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 | ||
| 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 | ||
| 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 |
| 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 |
||
| 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)) |
|
|