A doctor who wanted to have sex with one of his male medical students gave him medication meant for erectile dysfunction and told him it was to help him sleep. He also filmed the young man masturbating in his shower. Illustration / Paul Slater
A doctor who wanted to have sex with one of his male medical students gave him medication meant for erectile dysfunction and told him it was to help him sleep. He also filmed the young man masturbating in his shower. Illustration / Paul Slater
A doctor who secretly filmed a medical student in the shower and gave him erectile dysfunction meds under the guise of it being sleep medication will be allowed to keep working in his profession, partly because he specialises in such a niche area.
The High Court recently dismissed an appeal from the Medical Council for the doctor to be suspended saying no additional sanctions were needed to the ones already imposed.
It’s a ruling that has left the doctor’s victim furious.
“It allowed [the doctor] to avoid accountability despite the serious harm caused,” he told NZME.
The doctor received a discharge without conviction at the Auckland District Court in 2021 after pleading guilty to a charge of making an intimate visual recording. He was also granted permanent name suppression.
Instead, the doctor was given a $70,000 fine and told he could return to work after he completed a recertification programme and complied with certain conditions on his practice.
The Medical Council appealed that penalty to the High Court, saying the doctor displayed very poor judgment and misused his position of power as a mentor.
But a judge has now ruled that the original penalty was sufficiently severe and won’t be imposing a suspension on the doctor.
“This outcome minimises the real-world consequences of what was admitted in court,” the victim told NZME. “The imbalance of power, the setting, and the breach of trust should have weighed heavily in sentencing.
“Similarly, the tribunal’s decision to avoid licence removal felt like it put professional reputation above public safety, enabling someone dangerous to continue operating without appropriate consequences.”
The doctor’s lawyer, Harry Waalkens, said on his client’s behalf that the suggestion the doctor was a danger was “utterly baseless”.
“There was at no time a doctor-patient/professional relationship in existence,” Waalkens said.
“Moreover, the tribunal’s decision itself (one of the most experienced in its composition) was in keeping with the relevant case law and principles.
“So too the High Court’s rejection of the appeal against the tribunal decision – again, by a judge who is both highly experienced and respected."
Hopes for ‘more exciting sex’
According to the tribunal’s summary of facts, the doctor befriended the medical student following a lecture at his school.
Their relationship escalated over several years and they often travelled overseas together.
During these trips the doctor took sleep medication to help with jetlag and supplied that medication to the other man.
On one of these trips, at the airport, the doctor gave the man medication, saying it would help him sleep. But it was Cialis, a drug used to help with erectile dysfunction and often used to enhance sexual performance in men.
He later told the tribunal that he did this in the hope the pair would have more exciting sex.
Also during this trip, the doctor used a portable security camera to video the medical student in the shower and take photos of him without his knowledge.
Cialis (top) is one the more commonly used and more popular sexual dysfunction drugs for men along with Levitra (middle) and Viagra (bottom). Photo / Kenny Rodger
The doctor filmed him again in the shower at his home, and he stored the videos on his phone. These were discovered when he lent his phone to the student, who then reported them to the police. Criminal charges were then laid.
‘He was motivated by sexual gratification’
In a recently released decision, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decided not to suspend the doctor, in part because of the niche area of medicine he practises in.
NZME cannot identify the field he works in without violating court suppression orders.
The Medical Council then appealed the tribunal’s ruling and asked the High Court to take another look, and ideally impose a period of suspension as well as requiring him to undertake a sexual misconduct assessment and an education programme.
One of the lawyers for the Medical Council, Catherine Deans, told the court last month that the tribunal placed too much emphasis on the doctor’s unique specialities.
“The fact he practises in a niche field of medicine cannot trump the wider concerns,” she said.
“Particularly when he’s displayed very poor judgment. He’s misused his position of power as a mentor.”
Deans said that the tribunal erred in its finding in a number of ways and that the doctor had not actually shown any documented remorse, other than simply saying he regretted his actions.
She also said the doctor attempted to minimise his actions by referring to giving his victim Cialis as “misplaced folly” and all in good fun.
“It is deeply concerning that a [medical professional] would ever think there was anything humorous about this.”
The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal opted not to suspend the doctor. Photo / Jeremy Wilkinson.
Deans said the doctor also tried to place blame on his victim and said his complaints were the result of delusions or psychosis, and that he was mentally unwell.
She also questioned how much rehabilitation the doctor had done, and pointed to a single paragraph in the tribunal’s ruling where it mentioned he had talked to a psychologist about his relationship issues.
“It’s not disputed that he was motivated by sexual gratification,” she said, “And yet there is no evidence that his sexual motivations have been addressed.
“There’s no evidence he’s been rehabilitated [for] his covert and dishonest judgment in hiding a spy camera in the bathroom.”
By contrast the doctor’s lawyer, Waalkens, said it wasn’t mandatory for the tribunal to impose a penalty, and his client had been penalised to the tune of $70,000.
“It was a sobering penalty across the board,” Waalkens said.
“Where on earth is there a need for more penalty to be imposed?”
Justice Geoffrey Venning dismissed the Medical Council's appeal. Photo / Chris McKeen/Stuff
Waalkens said that there was a clear message of deterrence and accountability in the ruling, and it was a black mark he would have against his name forever.
However, while the Medical Council’s register of doctors lists the conditions on the doctor’s name, it does not link to or reference the tribunal’s decision specifically.
Justice Geoffrey Venning heard the Medical Council’s appeal.
“The principal purpose of the act is to protect the health and safety of the public by ensuring that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise,” Justice Venning said in his decision dismissing the application to suspend the doctor.
“Given the evidence and testimonials supporting [the doctor] it was open for the tribunal to conclude that, despite his actions, his high degree of professional competence and the much needed specialist care he provided for the benefit of the wider public supported a conclusion that suspension and additional conditions sought by the PCC were not required in this case.”
NZME called the clinic where the doctor works and was told he is taking extended leave.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
