NSW Caselaw
RICHTER v WALTON
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
KIRBY P, PRIESTLEY JA and O'KEEFE AJA 15 June 1993, 15 July 1993 [1993] NSWCA 233
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS — professional misconduct — discipline — insertion of finger into patient's vagina — admission of wrong and remorse — evidence that conduct was an aberration — protection of public
WORDS & PHRASES — "public welfare"
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS — professional misconduct — removal of name from register — specialist rheumatologist inserts finger into patient's vagina, caresses breasts and acts improperly — practitioner acknowledges misconduct and expresses remorse — Medical Tribunal orders removal of name from medical register — appeal to Court of Appeal against order
WORDS and PHRASES — "the public welfare".
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS — professional misconduct — removal of name from register — specialist rheumatologist inserts finger into patient's vagina, caresses breasts and acts improperly — practitioner acknowledges misconduct and expresses remorse — Medical Tribunal orders removal of name from medical register — appeal to Court of Appeal against order
WORDS and PHRASES — "the public welfare".
held: (by maj): Reprimand and 2 years supervised practice substituted for removal from the register. Kleiner v Secretary, Department of Health, unreported, CA, 20.10.1987 appld.
held: (1) (by the Court): In order to authorise the Court of Appeal to disturb an order of the Tribunal, it was necessary for the practitioner to show error in the Tribunal's decision. Huang v Walton, Court of Appeal, unreported, 20 April 1993 [1993] NSWJB 34 applied; (2) (by Kirby P and O'Keefe AJA; Priestley JA dissenting): The Tribunal erred in the use made by it of evidence concerning the risk of re offence and in the apparent inconsistency of its reasoning; (3) Such error required reconsideration of the evidence and of further evidence placed before the Court of Appeal in the light (inter alia) of the public welfare; (4) The purpose of the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal and by the Court was protection of the public, not, as such, the punishment of the practitioner. Clyne v New South Wales Bar
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate