HCCC v Simring (Suppression Order)

[2010] NSWMT 6

New South Wales

Medical Tribunal

CITATION:	HCCC v Dr Alex Simring (Suppression Order) [2010] NSWMT 6
TRIBUNAL:	Medical Tribunal
PARTIES:	Health Care Complaints Commission Dr Alex Amadeus Simring
FILE NUMBER(S):	40019 of 2009
CORAM:	Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ - Anderson, Dr P - Sammut, Dr J - Ettinger, Ms G
CATCHWORDS:	Publication vital to the maintenance of public confidence
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:	Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1909 104 CLR 186; Law Society of NSW v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408
DATES OF HEARING:	22.3.2010 to 23.3.2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 April 2010
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	G Farmer of Counsel R Lewis Solicitor- Helath Care Complaints Commission G Butler of Counsel D Brown Solicitor - Browns Legal and Consulting
ORDERS:	1 The suppression order made by the Tribunal in respect of the name of the respondent be lifted; 2 Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the Tribunals reasons for determination be suppressed.

JUDGMENT:

THE MEDICAL TRIBUNAL Thursday 29th April 2010

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

AT SYDNEY

No. 40019 of 2009
BETWEEN
Health Care Complaints Commission
Applicant

Dr Alex Amadeus SIMRING
Respondent

Deputy Chair : Judge A M Ainslie-Wallace

Members: Dr Peter Anderson

Dr John Sammut

Ms Geri Ettinger

Determination of the Application for a Suppression Order
1 These reasons are to be read in conjunction with the decision of the Medical Tribunal in the substantive matter.

2 The respondent practitioner was convicted of two counts of accessing and possessing child pornography. On each he was sentenced to imprisonment, the sentence being suspended on him entering into a bond to be of good behaviour.

3 When the Tribunal hearing commenced, on the application of the respondent, an order was made suppressing information that identified or might identify the respondent.

4 The respondent sought that this order continue.

5 The respondent and two of his siblings are medical practitioners and it was argued that they would be embarrassment and may suffer professional detriment through the publication of details of the respondent’s offending.

6 The respondent’s conviction and sentence attracted a degree of media attention. Two newspaper articles on that fact were before the Tribunal.

7 The Tribunal proceedings are open and conducted in public. This reflects the general principle that the administration of justice is carried on in public.

8 It is well established that the function of the Medical Tribunal is protective and that it does not, by its orders, punish the practitioner. The findings and consequential orders are “for the protection of those who require protection” (Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186). It is inherent in the protection of the public that information about the practitioner be available should a potential patient wish to enquire as to whether the practitioner had been the subject of an order under the Medical Practice Act.

9 The role of the Tribunal is also to ensure that public and professional colleagues can place their confidence in the practitioner. In Law Society of NSW v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408 at 441B, 471B, it was said:

“One element of deterrence is providing an assurance to the public that serious lapses in the conduct of…practitioners will not be passed over or lightly put aside, but will be appropriately dealt with”.

10 In a matter such as this where a practitioner has been convicted of a crime of possessing and accessing child pornography, it is vital to the maintenance of public confidence that professional colleagues and members of the public can have confidence that the Tribunal’s role has been fulfilled. To make the determination of the Tribunal public is part of that role.

11 As part of the discussion of the facts before the Tribunal some matters have been considered which are not relevant to the role of the Tribunal as I have outlined. They are matters which must properly be protected from the public gaze.

12 The Tribunal has determined that paragraphs 18-21 are not to be published.

Orders:

1 The suppression order made by the Tribunal in respect of the name of the respondent be lifted.

2 Paragraphs 18-21 of the Tribunal’s reasons for determination be suppressed.