Rotorua doctor loses suppression

Last updated 14:10 26/06/2014

Relevant offers

Crime

Drugs, gun, bomb and meth pipes uncovered in Cambridge raid Peng Wang trial: Accused admits to not learning NZ road rules Judge fines building owner, company $69,000 for changing a protected building Two arrested after bus crashes into car Murder accused Troy Taylor rejects medical evidence: 'Science gets lots of things wrong' Taxi company director claimed $800,000 expenses but didn't have any vehicles Fresh arrest warrant issued for alleged fraudster Simone Anne Wright in Australia 'Freaked out' driver reached speeds of 130km during pursuit Napier City Council charged with selling alcohol to a minor Teenager arrested after Dannevirke Caltex robbery

A Rotorua doctor facing a professional conduct hearing over an insurance fraud conviction has lost a bid for name suppression.

General practitioner Dr Peter Adams faces a Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing over a charge that his conviction affects his ability to practise.

Adams was convicted in the Rotorua District Court in February 2013 of attempting to obtain cash by deception. The charge related to a travel insurance claim involving $4500 of allegedly lost items. Adams never received any money and was convicted and discharged and ordered to pay $500 court costs, while the Ministry of Justice referred the matter to the tribunal.

Adams had sought name suppression on the grounds that further publicity would have a detrimental effect on him, his employer, patients, colleagues and family, which he argued would outweigh the public interest. Patients had already left the practice he worked at without explanation, which he believed was as a result of publicity around the original court case.

However, in declining interim suppression in its decision released today, the tribunal ruled there must be a presumption of public hearings where professional bodies could be seen to hold their members accountable.

The tribunal noted that Adams did not deny the district court conviction, meaning "that the presumption of innocence will inevitably not have the same weight as it would in cases where there are-as yet unproven allegations".

The tribunal did not oppose an application to suppress details of Adams personal life, family members and his practice. 

Ad Feedback

- Waikato Times

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content