Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Med19/443P
Practitioner: Dr J
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Driving with excess breath alcohol (Established)

Legislation – breach of Land Transport Act 1998

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Interim order for name suppression of practitioner.


Name Suppression to Practitioner

Permanent order for name suppression of the practitioner, any identifying details, and any details concerning the practitioner's health other than the facts surrounding the convictions.


Name Suppression to Witness/s and/or Family of parties

Permanent name suppression is granted to the practitioner's wife and children. 


Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Permanent name suppression is granted to the complainant in relation to the practitioner's assault conviction.


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 1038Med19443P.pdf

Addendum to Decision

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


On 12 June 2019 the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal considered a charge laid by the Professional Conduct Committee against Dr J, registered Medical Practitioner (the Doctor).

The charge alleged that the Doctor had been convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol and dangerous driving, and that the convictions reflected adversely on the Doctor’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner.

The hearing proceeded on the basis that the Doctor admitted the convictions but did not admit that the offences reflected adversely on his fitness to practise. 


This was not the first offence.  In 2013, the Doctor was convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol.

In 2015, the Doctor completed diversion after pleading not guilty to common assault while under the influence of alcohol.

In 2017, the Doctor pleaded guilty to male assaults female.  Again the Doctor was intoxicated during the incident.


The Tribunal was satisfied that the charges were made out and they did reflect adversely on the Doctor’s fitness to practise.  The Tribunal accepted that the Doctor’s alcohol issues have never affected or impaired him at work and that there was no evidence that the Doctor’s patients had ever been directly at risk as a result of his issues with alcohol.  The Tribunal also accepted the Doctor has a high degree of insight into his offending and the impact alcohol has had on his life, and noted the rehabilitation efforts the Doctor is undertaking.


The Tribunal suspended the Doctor’s registration for a period of 6 months for the protection of the public and to assist the Doctor in his rehabilitation.  The Tribunal censured the Doctor and imposed conditions on resumption of the Doctor’s practice.  The Tribunal ordered that the Doctor pay a contribution of $12,451.62 towards the costs of the Tribunal and PCC.