In Re Dr Roger Steven Jones and the Medical Practice Act [2005] NSWMT 9

In Re Dr Roger Steven Jones and the Medical Practice Act [2005] NSWMT 9

The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that all five particulars were proved. The practitioner abused the trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship with vulnerable patient A, lied about his sexual activities with her, improperly used and held himself out by the title psychiatrist when not qualified, and engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with patient B. This conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct and was sufficiently serious to constitute professional misconduct under s.37 of the Medical Practice Act 1992, warranting an order that he not be re-registered and not apply for registration for five years.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Professional Misconduct and Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct Complaint Under the Medical Practice Act 1992 / Medical Tribunal Determination After Fresh Hearing
Outcome
The Tribunal found the offence proved, found professional misconduct, ordered that the practitioner not be re-registered, and prohibited him from applying for registration for five years.
Legal Topics
['professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'doctor Patient Sexual Relationship' 'professional Boundaries' 'use of Specialist Title' 'medical Registration']
['health Law' 'medical Disciplinary Proceedings' 'professional Regulation'] ['professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'doctor Patient Sexual Relationship' 'professional Boundaries' 'use of Specialist Title' 'medical Registration']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Professional Misconduct and Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct Complaint Under the Medical Practice Act 1992 / Medical Tribunal Determination After Fresh Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the practitioner engaged in a personal and sexual relationship with patient A between about January 1995 and about July 1998.' 'Whether the practitioner continued to treat patient A after commencement of the sexual relationship.' 'Whether in 1996 the practitioner used the title psychiatrist when he was not entitled to do so.' 'Whether between about January 1995 and about July 1998 the practitioner held himself out to patient A to be a psychiatrist when he was not qualified as a psychiatrist.' 'Whether between around late December 1998 and around mid-June 2002 the practitioner engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with patient B.' 'Whether the proven conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct within the meaning of s.36 and s.37 of the Medical Practice Act 1992.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that all five particulars were proved. The practitioner abused the trust inherent in the doctor-patient relationship with vulnerable patient A, lied about his sexual activities with her, improperly used and held himself out by the title psychiatrist when not qualified, and engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with patient B. This conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct and was sufficiently serious to constitute professional misconduct under s.37 of the Medical Practice Act 1992, warranting an order that he not be re-registered and not apply for registration for five years.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal found the offence proved, found professional misconduct, ordered that the practitioner not be re-registered, and prohibited him from applying for registration for five years.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Clause 6 of Schedule 2 to the Medical Practice Act 1992 the Tribunal made a Non Publication Order in respect of Patient A and Patient B and any other witness, the naming of whom might lead to the identification of Patient A or Patient B.' 'The Tribunal finds the offence proved.' 'That the practitioner...