Patients in the dark on sex-case doctor

A doctor accused of sexual offences against 10 female patients has been allowed to continue practising medicine until his trial in September.

His name has been suppressed while he faces 35 counts of sexual offences, which allegedly occurred from 1981 to 2002.

The New Plymouth doctor - who denies the charges - was arrested in 2004 and at first charged with 13 counts of indecent assault and one of sexual violation, the Taranaki Daily News reported.

The newspaper and the Crown have since been to the High Court in an unsuccessful bid to have the interim suppression order lifted.

Yesterday the Medical Council's chief executive, Philip Pigou, told the Herald that the council had imposed conditions on the doctor.

He must not:

* Conduct any intimate examination (breast or pelvic) of a female patient, except in emergencies;

* Examine any female patients or children without a chaperone being present.

Mr Pigou refused to discuss why the doctor had not been suspended. "I can't talk about individual cases."

The doctor's lawyer, Harry Waalkens, said there was no basis for suspension.

"This case doesn't merit the threshold to warrant suspension.

"There's a whole range of facts related to the case that make the allegations seriously opposed."

New Plymouth Women's Health Centre co-ordinator Mary Allen said many people in the city knew who the doctor was, despite the suppression order, but some did not.

"I've had conversations with some people here who are concerned, like 'is it my doctor?' All male doctors [in New Plymouth] are under suspicion because they are not releasing this information."

She was aware of the allegations against the doctor before they were made public - "just through people discussing their own personal issues and those of other people they know."

Justice Rodney Hansen said the harm to the doctor of naming him publicly meant interim suppression should continue.

The Crown and the newspaper had not established public-interest grounds strong enough to justify inflicting that harm before a trial.

The conditions imposed on the doctor protected patients. The judge did not think naming the doctor would affect his risk of re-offending, which was negligible.

* The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and its medical predecessor, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, created by 1996 legislation, have together ruled on 20 cases of sexual misconduct and/or inappropriate touching by doctors; 15 of the cases were established and five were not. Several of the cases were referred following court convictions.