ChargeA Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) charged Dr Andrew Jeremy Dunkley (the Doctor) on the basis that he had been convicted and sentenced in the District Court on six counts of possession of objectionable material.The particulars of the charge were as follows: The Doctor pleaded guilty and was convicted of six charges of possession of objectionable material, including material containing sexual abuse images of girls aged 12 to 14 years under section 131[A](1) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. The Doctor was sentenced to 160 hours of community work and placed on intensive supervision for 18 months. The PCC charged that the conduct reflected adversely on the Doctor's fitness to practise as a medical practitioner.FindingThe Doctor admitted the charge and accepted that he was guilty of professional misconduct.The Tribunal had no hesitation in concluding that the Doctor's conduct was a major departure from the applicable standards of legal and ethical behaviour reasonably expected of a medical practitioner. His conduct reflected adversely on his fitness to practise and it warranted discipline.BackgroundExamination of the Doctor's computer by Police revealed over 50,000 images of predominantly young teenage girls in sexually explicit poses.The Doctor pleaded guilty to six counts of possession of objectionable material, including material containing sexual abuse images of girls aged 12 to 14 years. The Doctor was convicted in the District Court and the Judge sentenced him to 160 hours of community work and placed on intensive supervision for 18 months. The Doctor was ordered to undertake assessment and complete the WellStop programme; undertake any other counseling and treatment as directed by the Probation Officer and not to own or possess a computer or any electronic equipment capable of internet access, except for legitimate work purposes.There was an order for the destruction of the seized equipment.The PCC submitted that the Court had noted that although there were a large number of images available, there was no suggestion that the Doctor had downloaded them and there was no basis to conclude he had viewed every image.At the time of offending he had a promising career, and was only four weeks away from completing a five year specialist training course in diagnostic and interventional radiology in order to become a Consultant Radiologist.The Doctor voluntarily ceased practising from 18 October 2010 and surrendered his practising certificate on 24 November 2010 advising he would not seek to have it renewed.PenaltyThe Tribunal was mindful to impose a penalty or penalties which were sufficient to bring the message home to the Doctor so as to prevent any such future behaviour or risk of offending; and to protect the public. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that any patients were compromised by the Doctor's actions.The Tribunal considered the following factors:Aggravating factors: Such offending is inherently premeditated. It took place over a longer period of time with a large number of images. Inherent in the course of offending that victims somewhere have been exploited. Mitigating factors: The Doctor's guilty plea. His responsible cooperation with the police, his employer and the professional body responsible for his career. No previous convictions. That he referred himself to appropriate counselling and he was committed to continuing. That he was genuinely remorseful The Tribunal was of the view that the matter was not sufficiently severe to justify removing the Doctor's name from the register, although that has occurred in other cases, those cases were distinguishable because of their severity.The Doctor voluntarily ceased practising 5 months prior to the hearing, which the Tribunal took into account. The Tribunal was of the view that the Doctor should be removed from practice for a period of 9 months. Because of the period of voluntary removal, that leaves approximately 4 months.The Tribunal censured the Doctor.The Tribunal imposed the following conditions: The Doctor was to undertake, at his own cost, clinical and psychological treatment, assistance and other rehabilitation steps as required by WellStop and the Medical Council. This is to include a mentoring relationship with an appropriate radiologist specialist or other medical practitioner as approved by the Medical Council, which will include regular meetings to assist in early identification of triggers as established in the WellStop individual relapse prevention programme. Undertake a psychological assessment, at his own cost, as directed and approved by the Medical Council prior to resumption as a medical practitioner. To give an undertaking, in writing, not to access material, images or publications that are deemed objectionable under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1990. Comply with the special conditions of intensive supervision imposed by the District Court, including not owning or possessing a computer or any electronic equipment capable of internet access, except during the legitimate course of employment, for a period of 18 months. The following conditions were imposed and apply from the resumption of practice as a medical practitioner: For a period of three years, to advise any future employer of the convictions, the findings of the Tribunal and these conditions. For a period of three years, any examination or physical treatment of female patients under the age of 18 years is to be done in the presence of a chaperone that must remain present at all times during the examination or treatment. The cost of the chaperone is to be borne by the Doctor. For a period of 18 months, the Doctor is subject to professional supervision by a clinical psychologist and / or medical practitioner, as chosen by the Medical Council with regularity and detail of supervision. The Doctor was ordered to pay $6000 towards the cost of prosecution, to be divided equally between the PCC and the Tribunal costs.The Tribunal directed a copy of the decision be published on its website. The Tribunal further directed that a notice stating the effect of its decision be published in the New Zealand Medical Journal. The full decisions relating to the case can be found on the Tribunal web site at www.hpdt.org.nzReference No: Med11/175P.

ChargeA Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) charged Dr Andrew Jeremy Dunkley (the Doctor) on the basis that he had been convicted and sentenced in the District Court on six counts of possession of objectionable material.The particulars of the charge were as follows: The Doctor pleaded guilty and was convicted of six charges of possession of objectionable material, including material containing sexual abuse images of girls aged 12 to 14 years under section 131[A](1) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. The Doctor was sentenced to 160 hours of community work and placed on intensive supervision for 18 months. The PCC charged that the conduct reflected adversely on the Doctor's fitness to practise as a medical practitioner.FindingThe Doctor admitted the charge and accepted that he was guilty of professional misconduct.The Tribunal had no hesitation in concluding that the Doctor's conduct was a major departure from the applicable standards of legal and ethical behaviour reasonably expected of a medical practitioner. His conduct reflected adversely on his fitness to practise and it warranted discipline.BackgroundExamination of the Doctor's computer by Police revealed over 50,000 images of predominantly young teenage girls in sexually explicit poses.The Doctor pleaded guilty to six counts of possession of objectionable material, including material containing sexual abuse images of girls aged 12 to 14 years. The Doctor was convicted in the District Court and the Judge sentenced him to 160 hours of community work and placed on intensive supervision for 18 months. The Doctor was ordered to undertake assessment and complete the WellStop programme; undertake any other counseling and treatment as directed by the Probation Officer and not to own or possess a computer or any electronic equipment capable of internet access, except for legitimate work purposes.There was an order for the destruction of the seized equipment.The PCC submitted that the Court had noted that although there were a large number of images available, there was no suggestion that the Doctor had downloaded them and there was no basis to conclude he had viewed every image.At the time of offending he had a promising career, and was only four weeks away from completing a five year specialist training course in diagnostic and interventional radiology in order to become a Consultant Radiologist.The Doctor voluntarily ceased practising from 18 October 2010 and surrendered his practising certificate on 24 November 2010 advising he would not seek to have it renewed.PenaltyThe Tribunal was mindful to impose a penalty or penalties which were sufficient to bring the message home to the Doctor so as to prevent any such future behaviour or risk of offending; and to protect the public. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that any patients were compromised by the Doctor's actions.The Tribunal considered the following factors:Aggravating factors: Such offending is inherently premeditated. It took place over a longer period of time with a large number of images. Inherent in the course of offending that victims somewhere have been exploited. Mitigating factors: The Doctor's guilty plea. His responsible cooperation with the police, his employer and the professional body responsible for his career. No previous convictions. That he referred himself to appropriate counselling and he was committed to continuing. That he was genuinely remorseful The Tribunal was of the view that the matter was not sufficiently severe to justify removing the Doctor's name from the register, although that has occurred in other cases, those cases were distinguishable because of their severity.The Doctor voluntarily ceased practising 5 months prior to the hearing, which the Tribunal took into account. The Tribunal was of the view that the Doctor should be removed from practice for a period of 9 months. Because of the period of voluntary removal, that leaves approximately 4 months.The Tribunal censured the Doctor.The Tribunal imposed the following conditions: The Doctor was to undertake, at his own cost, clinical and psychological treatment, assistance and other rehabilitation steps as required by WellStop and the Medical Council. This is to include a mentoring relationship with an appropriate radiologist specialist or other medical practitioner as approved by the Medical Council, which will include regular meetings to assist in early identification of triggers as established in the WellStop individual relapse prevention programme. Undertake a psychological assessment, at his own cost, as directed and approved by the Medical Council prior to resumption as a medical practitioner. To give an undertaking, in writing, not to access material, images or publications that are deemed objectionable under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1990. Comply with the special conditions of intensive supervision imposed by the District Court, including not owning or possessing a computer or any electronic equipment capable of internet access, except during the legitimate course of employment, for a period of 18 months. The following conditions were imposed and apply from the resumption of practice as a medical practitioner: For a period of three years, to advise any future employer of the convictions, the findings of the Tribunal and these conditions. For a period of three years, any examination or physical treatment of female patients under the age of 18 years is to be done in the presence of a chaperone that must remain present at all times during the examination or treatment. The cost of the chaperone is to be borne by the Doctor. For a period of 18 months, the Doctor is subject to professional supervision by a clinical psychologist and / or medical practitioner, as chosen by the Medical Council with regularity and detail of supervision. The Doctor was ordered to pay $6000 towards the cost of prosecution, to be divided equally between the PCC and the Tribunal costs.The Tribunal directed a copy of the decision be published on its website. The Tribunal further directed that a notice stating the effect of its decision be published in the New Zealand Medical Journal. The full decisions relating to the case can be found on the Tribunal web site at www.hpdt.org.nzReference No: Med11/175P.