Possession of objectionable material (Med 12/228P)ChargeA Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) charged that Dr Vikram Abraham Joseph (the Doctor) had been convicted of offences that reflected adversely on his fitness to practise as a medical practitioner. The particulars of the charge were:On 2 July 2012 in the District Court, the Doctor pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 6 charges of possession of objectionable material (including videos depicting children aged between 5 and 14 years engaged in sexual intercourse and other penetrative sexual acts with adults and one another) which are offences each punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.FindingThe Doctor admitted the charge and that the convictions reflected adversely on his fitness to practise. The Tribunal found that the Doctors conviction on each of the six charges in question, individually and cumulatively reflected adversely on his fitness to practise medicine.BackgroundThe Doctors flatmate entered his bedroom in their flat and accessed the Doctors computer. The flatmate saw several files with titles that led her to believe that they contained child pornography. The flatmate subsequently advised the Police that she suspected the Doctor of downloading child pornography. As a result Police seized the Doctors computer and located 6 videos involving exploitation of children for sexual purposes. The Doctor was charged, convicted and sentenced for possession of objectionable material.PenaltyThe Doctor was censured and suspended from practice for 12 months. On resumption of practice the Doctor was ordered to meet the costs of and practise under conditions which are summarised below: He is to provide a written undertaking to the Tribunal and the Medical Council that he will not access objectionable material. He is to undertake clinical psychological treatment and assistance as required by the SAFE Network programme or an alternative clinical psychological treatment programme if the Medical Council is satisfied that the alternative programme will meet the Doctors psychological needs. He is to comply with any conditions imposed by the Health Committee of the Medical Council. On completion of his treatment he is to provide a psychological assessment that satisfies the Medical Council that he is fit to practise. He is required to have professional supervision to monitor and report on his health as required by the Medical Council. If he is involved in training, a support person, approved by the Medical Council, must be present in each clinical attachment if he is in the presence of any child under 16 years. The support person will be responsible for supervision. However, when he is treating a patient over 16 years where there are children present, the presence of the patient will suffice as supervision for those children. He is to meet any costs associated with this condition. If he examines or physically treats a patient under the age of 16 years, a chaperone must remain present at all times during the examination or treatment. He is to meet the cost of the chaperone. He is to advise any future employer of the Court convictions, the Tribunal decision and the above conditions. The Tribunal ordered the Doctor to pay costs of $12,173.The Tribunal directed that a notice stating the effect of its decision be published in the New Zealand Medical Journal and the decision and summary be published on the Tribunals website.