Re the Medical Practice Act 1992 and Dr Robert Towndrow

[2004] NSWMT 2

New South Wales

Medical Tribunal

CITATION:	Re the Medical Practice Act 1992 and Dr Robert Towndrow [2004] NSWMT 2
TRIBUNAL:	Medical Tribunal
PARTIES:	Health Care Complaints Commission Dr Robert Towndrow
FILE NUMBER(S):	40004 of 2003
CORAM:	Patten, DCJ - Glover, Prof - Mares, Dr J - Cotton, R Ms
CATCHWORDS:	Deregistration
LEGISLATION CITED:	Medical Practice Act 1992
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 January 2004
ORDERS:	1.The Tribunal further orders pursuant to s 64 (3) that an application for review of the earlier order may not be made until after the period of five years from today. 2.The Tribunal orders that Dr Towndrow pay the costs of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE MEDICAL TRIBUNAL

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Judge D. Patten

TRIBUNAL MEMBERS:

Professor W Glover

Dr J Mares

Ms R Cotton

NO: 40004 of 2003

Date of Determination: 27 January 2004

DR ROBERT TOWNDROW AND THE MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES

Reasons for Determination and Orders

The Tribunal has before it, a Complaint in relation to Dr Robert Towndrow, who practised medicine as a psychiatrist before his voluntary deregistration in July last year.

The Complaint in summary, alleges that he formed an inappropriate, and sexual, relationship, with two patients, referred to in the documents before us and to whom we will refer as patients A and B; that he continued to treat those patients during the course of his inappropriate relationship with them; that he claimed Medicare for consultations which were not for therapeutic purposes; that he gave false and misleading information to the President of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, and that he provided inappropriate clinical management to them.

Dr Towndrow, through his counsel today, confirming what he had earlier conveyed in writing to the Health Care Complaints Commission, admitted the truth of the matters complained of. The relationship with patient A, which was inappropriate, continued from about August 1994 until sometime in 1996. The inappropriate relationship with patient B was much shorter, occurring in the period July/August 2000.

In between those two events, as it happened, Dr Towndrow had sought professional assistance from psychiatrist Dr Jonathan Phillips. Somewhat incongruously, he commenced his inappropriate relationship with patient B very shortly after he ceased treatment with Dr Phillips.

In view of the admissions made, it is unnecessary to detail the relevant facts. It will suffice to state that they indicate gross breaches of the standards of conduct expected of a medical practitioner. There is no doubt, in the view of the Tribunal, that there has been established professional misconduct of a high order.

Mr Diethelm, counsel for Dr Towndrow, did not submit that the conduct did not constitute professional misconduct, not did he submit that an order other than deregistration should follow. As indicated earlier, Dr Towndrow voluntarily deregistered himself in July 2003 and, earlier than that, sometime about mid 2000, he was suspended from medical practice. He did not seek to resist the order of suspension then made.

Mr Diethelm, in his submissions to the Tribunal, pointed to the admissions made by Dr Towndrow, saving the complainants the ordeal of having to relive their experiences by giving evidence. He pointed to the acceptance by Dr Towndrow of his suspension, and to the fact that he is undertaking rehabilitation, which is continuing, at considerable personal expense through what is known as the “Encompass Programme”.

Mr Diethelm also pointed to expressions of contrition by Dr Towndrow in correspondence. As to that, however, the Tribunal notes that he was not personally present at the hearing, and it has been deprived of the benefit of receiving from Dr Towndrow himself any expression of remorse or contrition for his conduct. The Tribunal regard this as a matter of some regret.

Dr Diethelm submitted that in the light of the matters to which brief reference has been made, and to the undertaking which Dr Towndrow gave not to reapply for readmission, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to decline to specify a time pursuant to s 64 (3) of the Medical Practice Act. Mr Joseph SC, counsel for the HCCC on the other hand, submitted that in the interests of maintaining public confidence in the medical profession and to mark disapproval of Dr Towndrow’s conduct, a significant period should be fixed under s 64 (3). The Tribunal takes a very serious view indeed of what it regards as Dr Towndrow’s appalling conduct, and it has not doubt that only an order for deregistration is appropriate.

As to whether an order under s 64 (3) should be made, the Tribunal accepts Mr Joseph’s submission that such an order is desirable to mark its view as to the seriousness of Dr Towndrow’s conduct.

Although the Tribunal feels bound to say that the material before it discloses such deficiencies of character that it is difficult to accept that Dr Towndrow will be able to re-establish his character, as least for many years, the Tribunal will adopt the period of five years suggested by Mr Joseph.

Accordingly, the order that the Tribunal makes pursuant to s 64 of the Medical Practice Act is that Dr Robert Towndrow be deregistered, such order operating pursuant to subs (2) as an order that he not be reregistered.

The Tribunal further orders pursuant to s 64 (3) that an application for review of the earlier order may not be made until after the period of five years from today.

The Tribunal orders that Dr Towndrow pay the costs of the proceedings.

Signed for and on behalf of the

members of the Tribunal

Judge David Patten

Deputy Chairman