A v Professional Conduct Committee - [2026] 2 NZLR 308

Evidence — Credibility — Tribunal entitled to consider — Persistent implausible allegation — Failure to make concessions — Potential bias of wife — Potential impact on her family — ‘Smiley’ description did not accord with likely pain of complainant — Tribunal considered complainant’s inconsistent time estimates — Changes in complainant’s description — Established inappropriate touching — Adequate reasons given for preferring complainant’s evidence.

Evidence — Standard of proof — Flexible standard — Stronger evidence required for more serious allegations — Not beyond reasonable doubt — No need to be sure — Tribunal’s expertise relevant.

Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal — Names may be prohibited if desirable — Consideration of overriding purpose of Act required — Protection of public — Not lower than threshold for non-publication in civil proceedings — No error in assessment of suicide risk — Impact on children inevitable and for parents to manage — Impact on wife due to her evidence — Relationship central to decision — New evidence admitted — Issue of publication remitted to Tribunal — Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 s 95(2).

Appeal — Costs decision — Exercise of discretion — Civil proceedings — Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal uniquely placed to make assessment — Tribunal allowed a discount — No evidence of wife’s income — No evidence about insurance — Insufficient evidence to justify further decrease.

Bill of Rights Act — Sexual misconduct assessment — Medical treatment — Not prescribed by law — Cannot impose as condition without consent — Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 s 101.