New South Wales
Medical Tribunal
CITATION: Re Dr Richard Wingate [2007] NSWMT 2 TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal PARTIES: Health Care Complaints Commission
Dr Richard WingateFILE NUMBER(S): 40001 of 2006 CORAM: Rein, SC DCJ - Giuffrida, Dr M - Ng, Dr J - Napier, Ms L CATCHWORDS: Medical practitioner found guilty of possession of child pornography as defined by and in breach of s 578B Crimes Act - whether circumstances of offence rendered practitioner unfit to practise medicine - whether not of good character - whether commission of offence was "professional misconduct" LEGISLATION CITED: Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998
Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998
Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Act 2005
Crimes Act 1900, s 578B
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 70
Health Care Complaints Act 1993
Medical Practice Act 1992, ss 2A, 36, 37, 39, 64, 154
Medical Practice Act 1994 (Vic)CASES CITED: A County Council v W (Disclosure) [1997] 1 FLR 574;
A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of NSW (2004) 216 CLR 253; [2004] HCA 1;
Bannister v Walton (unreported, NSWCA, 30/04/92, BC9201911);
Childs v Walton (unreported, NSWCA, 13/11/90, BC9001755);
Collins v Medical Practitioners Board [2003] VCAT 1755;
Council of Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (No 2) (1994) 34 NSWLR 408;
Dental Board of Queensland v Cullen [2006] QHPT 004;
Dilworth v Stamps Commissioner [1899] AC 99;
Ex parte Meehan; Re Medical Practitioners Act [1965] NSWR 30;
Ex parte Tziniolis; Re Medical Practitioners Act [1967] 1 NSWR 357;
Gayed v Walton (unreported, NSWCA, 31/7/1997, BC9708087);
Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630;
Law Society of South Australia v Rodda (2002) 83 SASR 541; [2002] SASC 274;
McBride v Walton (unreported, NSWCA, 15/7/94, BC9402907);
Medical Board of Queensland v Fitzgerald (Queensland Health Practitioners Tribunal, 27/04/06);
Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282;
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284;
New South Wales Bar Association v Hamman (1999) 217 ALR 553; [1999] NSWCA 404;
Qidwai v Brown [1984] 1 NSWLR 100;
R v Fellows [1997] 2 All ER 548;
R v Stroempl (1995) 105 CCC (3d) 187;
Re A Solicitor [1960] VR 617;
Re Anthony York (Nurses Tribunal of NSW, 12/08/98);
Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409;
Re Dr Abraham Stephanopoulos [2006] MPBV 12;
Re Dr Motum (Medical Tribunal NSW, 4013/99, 2/08/00);
Re Dr Richard Byron Collins [2003] MPBV 10 ;
Re James Benedict Anton Provan [2005] PRBD (Vic) 3;
Re Mueller (Psychologists Tribunal of NSW, 6/09/05);
Re Woolcock (NSW Medical Tribunal, 14/09/95);
Reyes v Dental Board of South Australia (2002) 83 SASR 551; [2002] SASC 239;
Robinson v Local Board of Barton-Eccles (1883) 8 App Cas 798;
Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) (1999) 47 BMLR 63; [2000] 1 AC 311;
Roylance v The General Medical Council [1999] UKPC 16;
Van Lan Ha v Pharmacy…
Continue reading Re Dr Richard Wingate
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re Dr Richard Wingate [2007] NSWMT 2
- Case
- [2007] NSWMT 2
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Dr Richard Wingate, a medical practitioner, faced disciplinary proceedings before the Medical Board of Australia after being found guilty of possessing child pornography in violation of section 578B of the Crimes Act. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether these circumstances made him unfit to practice medicine, if he was of good character, and if his actions constituted "professional misconduct."
The tribunal needed to decide if Dr. Wingate's actions warranted restrictions on his practice, particularly in relation to minors, and if he should be subject to ongoing psychological treatment. It also needed to address whether he should be reprimanded for his conduct and if he should be required to provide the Board with accurate information about his sexual orientation and the nature of his offenses.
In its decision, the tribunal concluded that while Dr. Wingate's actions were serious, they did not render him unfit to practice medicine. However, it imposed conditions on his practice, including that he must not attend to patients under 18 without a nurse or approved individual present. It also mandated ongoing psychological treatment and reprimanded him for downloading child pornography and for not providing accurate information to the Board. Finally, it ordered him to pay the costs of the hearing.
The tribunal's final orders included restrictions on Dr. Wingate's practice, mandatory psychological treatment, reprimands, and a requirement to pay the costs of the hearing. These orders reflect the tribunal's view that while Dr. Wingate's actions were serious, they did not amount to a complete loss of fitness to practice medicine.
The tribunal needed to decide if Dr. Wingate's actions warranted restrictions on his practice, particularly in relation to minors, and if he should be subject to ongoing psychological treatment. It also needed to address whether he should be reprimanded for his conduct and if he should be required to provide the Board with accurate information about his sexual orientation and the nature of his offenses.
In its decision, the tribunal concluded that while Dr. Wingate's actions were serious, they did not render him unfit to practice medicine. However, it imposed conditions on his practice, including that he must not attend to patients under 18 without a nurse or approved individual present. It also mandated ongoing psychological treatment and reprimanded him for downloading child pornography and for not providing accurate information to the Board. Finally, it ordered him to pay the costs of the hearing.
The tribunal's final orders included restrictions on Dr. Wingate's practice, mandatory psychological treatment, reprimands, and a requirement to pay the costs of the hearing. These orders reflect the tribunal's view that while Dr. Wingate's actions were serious, they did not amount to a complete loss of fitness to practice medicine.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal orders: (1) that Dr Wingate’s practice be restricted in that he must not attend upon a person of less than 18 years of age without the presence of a nurse or other person approved by the Medical Board; (2) that Dr Wingate continue in treatment with a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist of his choosing at a frequency determined by the therapist and for Dr Wingate to consent for the therapist to notify the Board of termination of treatment. Such treatment is to continue until it is reviewed by the Board; (3) that Dr Wingate be reprimanded in respect of his downloading of pornographic images of children in the period 1998-2004; (4) that Dr Wingate be reprimanded for his failure to provide the Medical Board with accurate information concerning his sexual orientation and the nature of the offences which he committed; (5) that Dr Wingate pay the costs of the hearing.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.