Level 28, 2-6 Gilmer Terrace, Wellington 6011

PO Box 10509, The Terrace, Wellington 6143, New Zealand

Phone: 04-381 6816

Email: dgainey@hpdt.org.nz

Website: www.hpdt.org.nz

DECISION NO 976/Med17/408P

IN THE MATTER of s91(1)(b) the Health Practitioners

Competence Assurance Act 2003

(“the Act”)

-AND-

IN THE MATTER of a charge laid pursuant to s71 of the

Act against ALISTAIR FRANCIS

FARR, of Hamilton, Registered

Medical Practitioner.

BEFORE THE HEALTH PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

HEARING held at Auckland on 4 April 2018

TRIBUNAL: Ms M Dew (Chair)

Mr J Lee, Dr P Thomson, Dr I Civil CNZM, Dr I Stewart (Members)

Ms D Gainey (Executive Officer)

Ms J Kennedy (Stenographer)

APPEARANCES: Ms A Miller and Ms E Coburn for the Professional Conduct Committee

Mr H Waalkens QC for the Practitioner

2

Introduction

1. Dr Alistair Francis Farr (“the practitioner”) has been a registered medical practitioner

for over 13 years. Since December 2013, he has practiced as a Diagnostic and

Interventional Radiologist. He is a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand

College of Radiologists.

2. The practitioner faces a charge of professional misconduct under s100 of the Health

Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (“the Act”).

The charge

3. The particulars of the charge are as follows:

“Pursuant to section 81(2) of the Act, the Professional Conduct Committee

lays a charge against Dr Farr that between on or around 16 December 2015

and 9 January 2016, when employed as a Radiologist at the Waikato District

Health Board, he conducted himself in a dishonest and/or unprofessional

manner in the following ways:

1. On or around 16 December 2015 at 1857 hours, when not rostered on to

attend work and when not on call, Dr Farr accessed a medication room

in the Radiology Department at Waikato Hospital without legitimate

reason and for the purpose of taking medications and/or medical

equipment for his personal use.

2. On or around 18 December 2015 at 1651 hours, Dr Farr accessed a

medication room in the Radiology Department at Waikato Hospital

without legitimate reason and for the purpose of taking medication and/or

medical equipment for his personal use.

3. On or around 4 January 2016 at 1252 hours, when not rostered on to

attend work and when not on call, Dr Farr accessed a medication room

in the Radiology Department at Waikato Hospital without legitimate

reason and for the purpose of taking the following medication for his

personal use:

(a) Diazepam 10mg 2ml injection;

3

(b) Midazolam 15mg 3ml injection;

(c) Tramadol 100mg 2ml injection;

(d) Cyclizine 50mg 1ml injection.

4. On or around 9 January 2016 at 2014 hours, when not rostered on to

attend work and when not on call, Dr Farr accessed a medication room

in the Radiology Department at Waikato Hospital without legitimate

reason and for the purpose of taking the following medication and

medical equipment for his personal use:

(a) Midazolam 15mg 3ml injection;

(b) Naloxone 400mcg/1ml;

(c) A quantity of syringes and needles.

The conduct alleged above either separately or cumulatively amounts to

professional misconduct pursuant to section 100(1)(a) and/or section

100(1)(b) of the Act.”

4. The charge had included a fifth particular. However, at the hearing, the PCC advised

the fifth particular had been withdrawn. There was no objection to this by the

practitioner. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the particular.

The agreed facts

5. The parties provided the Tribunal with an Agreed Summary of Facts dated 17 January

2018. The agreed facts are set out below.

6. Alistair Francis Farr is a registered medical practitioner. He graduated with a Bachelor

of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from the University of Auckland and was first

registered with the Medical Council in 2004. Dr Farr became vocationally registered in

the vocational scope of practice of diagnostic and interventional radiology in 2013.

7. At all material times relevant to the charge, Dr Farr was employed as a radiologist by

Waikato District Health Board (WDHB) in the Radiology Department at Waikato

Hospital.

8. Since 2005, Dr Farr has been under monitoring by the Medical Council’s Health

Committee due to an anxiety disorder, and alcohol and drug misuse. Dr Farr had

4

relapses in 2007 and 2012. Dr Farr had a further relapse of his anxiety disorder and

alcohol and drug misuse in December 2015.

9. On Wednesday 16 December 2015, Dr Farr was not rostered on to work and was not

on call. At 18:57 hours, he used his WDHB access card to enter the medication room

in the Radiology Department at Waikato Hospital. Dr Farr had no legitimate reason to

be in the medication room, and he admits that he entered the room for the purpose of

taking medications and/or medical equipment for his personal use.

10. Dr Farr was rostered on at work on Friday 18 December 2015. In the morning he was

rostered to do scanning in ultrasound, and in the afternoon he was doing obstetric

reporting. There is no patient contact for obstetric reporting. At 16:51 hours Dr Farr

used his WDHB access card to enter the medication room in the Radiology

Department. Dr Farr had no legitimate reason to be in the medication room, and he

admits that he entered the room for the purpose of taking medications and/or medical

equipment for his personal use.

11. In or around mid-December 2015 a covert close circuit television (CCTV) camera was

installed in the medication room in the Radiology Department as part of an

investigation into items going missing from that room in November 2015. Dr Farr was

not the subject of that investigation and nor was he the reason for the installation of the

CCTV equipment.

12. Dr Farr was not rostered on to work and was not on call on Monday 4 January 2016, a

public holiday. At 12:52 hours Dr Farr used his WDHB access card to enter the

medication room in the Radiology Department. Dr Farr had no legitimate reason to be

in the medication room. Examination of the CCTV footage showed Dr Farr accessing

storage bins containing the following medication:

(a) Diazepam 10mg 2 ml injection;

(b) Midazolam 15mg 3 ml injection;

(c) Tramadol 100mg 2 ml injection;

(d) Cyclizone 50mg 1 ml injection.

5

13. CCTV footage also shows Dr Farr placing something in his left hand side pocket as he

leaves the medication room. Dr Farr admits taking medication, as described above,

from the medication room for his personal use.

14. On Saturday 9 January 2016, Dr Farr was not rostered to work and was not on call. At

20:14 hours Dr Farr used a WDHB access card to enter the medication room in the

Radiology Department. Dr Farr had no legitimate reason to be in the medication room.

Examination of the CCTV footage showed Dr Farr accessing storage bins containing

the following medication and equipment:

(a) Midazolam 15mg 3 ml injection;

(b) Nalozone 400mcg/1ml; and

(c) A quantity of syringes and needles.

15. Dr Farr admits taking medication and equipment, as described above, from the

medication room for his personal use.

16. At no time was Dr Farr found to have been intoxicated or under the influence of the

medications referred to in this matter while he was at work.

17. On or around 12 January 2016, Dr Farr took sick leave and was admitted as an

inpatient to Henry Rongomau Bennett Centre for a period of three weeks for his health

condition. He was discharged from hospital to the Ashburn Clinic in Dunedin for

inpatient treatment. He remained at the Ashburn Clinic until August 2016.

18. In March 2016, the WDHB wrote to Dr Farr regarding the allegations that are the

subject of the charge before the Tribunal. Dr Farr co-operated with the DHB’s

employment processes, however he did not return to work and in October 2016 Dr Farr

resigned from his employment at the WDHB. On 13 October 2016, the WDHB made a

complaint to the Medical Council relating to the matters set out above.

19. Dr Farr has also cooperated with both the PCC and its investigation processes, as well

as with respect to his disciplinary proceeding.

20. Dr Farr, as a direct consequence of the matters the subject of this disciplinary charge,

has not worked as a registered medical practitioner since January 2016.

6

21. Dr Farr admits the facts set out above. Dr Farr admits the disciplinary charge, and that

his conduct amounts to professional misconduct under s 100(1)(a) and s 100(1)(b) of

the Act.

22. The parties also produced an Agreed Bundle of Documents, which included the

practitioner’s registration details, the practitioner’s voluntary undertaking to cease

practice, and various documents from the Waikato District Health Board employment

investigation and the Medical Council of New Zealand investigation into the conduct

giving rise to the charge.

The relevant law

23. The practitioner is charged under s100(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act, which provides as

follows:

“100 Grounds on which health practitioner may be disciplined

(1) The Tribunal may make any 1 or more of the orders authorised by section 101

if, after conducting a hearing on a charge laid under section 91 against a health

practitioner, it makes 1 or more findings that –

(a) the practitioner has been guilty of professional misconduct because of any

act or omission that, in the judgment of the Tribunal, amounts to

malpractice or negligence in relation to the scope of practice in respect of

which the practitioner was registered at the time that the conduct

occurred; or

(b) the practitioner has been guilty of professional misconduct because of any

act or omission that, in the judgment of the Tribunal, has brought or was

likely to bring discredit to the profession that the health practitioner

practised at the time that the conduct occurred.”

24. The Tribunal and the Courts have considered the term “professional misconduct” under

s100(1)(a) and (b) of the Act on numerous occasions. The Tribunal draws on the

guidance now available in those cases.1

1 Nuttall, (8Med04/03P), Collie v Nursing Council of New Zealand, [2000] NZAR 74, Aladdin

(12/Den05/04 and 13/Den04/02D), Dale (20/Nur05/09D), Dr T (636/Med14/272P).

7

25. In Collie v Nursing Council, Gendall J considered negligence and malpractice in the

context of professional misconduct at paragraph [21]:

“Negligence or malpractice may or may not be sufficient to constitute

professional misconduct and the guide must be standards applicable by

competent, ethical and responsible practitioners and there must be behaviour

which falls seriously short of that which is to be considered acceptable and not

mere inadvertent error, oversight or for that matter carelessness.”

26. His Honour went on to discuss what it meant to discredit the profession in the

professional disciplinary context at paragraph [28]:

“To discredit is to bring harm to the repute or reputation of the profession. The

standard must be an objective standard with the question to be asked by the

Council being whether reasonable members of the public, informed and with

knowledge of all the factual circumstances, could reasonably conclude that the

reputation and good-standing of the nursing profession was lowered by the

behaviour of the nurse concerned.”

27. There is now a well-established two stage test for determining whether a practitioner’s

conduct constitutes professional misconduct.2 The two key steps are:

(a) First, an objective analysis of whether the practitioner’s acts or omissions can

reasonably be regarded by the Tribunal as constituting malpractice, negligence or

otherwise bringing or likely to bring discredit on the profession. In particular,

does the conduct fall short of conduct expected of a reasonably competent health

practitioner operating in that vocational area? and

(b) Secondly, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the practitioner’s departure from

accepted standards is significant enough to warrant a disciplinary sanction for the

purposes of protection of the public or maintaining professional standards.

2 McKenzie v MPDT [2004] NZAR 47 at [71], PCC v Nuttall (8Med04/03P), Dr T

(636/Med14/272P), F v Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [2005] 3 NZLR 774 and Johns

v Director of Proceedings [2017] NZHC 2843.

8

Onus and standard of proof

28. The burden of proof in the present case is on the PCC. It is for the PCC to establish

that the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct and for it to produce the

evidence that establishes the facts upon which the charge is based to the appropriate

standard of proof.

29. The standard of proof is the civil standard of proof, that is proof which satisfies the

Tribunal that on the balance of probabilities the particulars of the charge are more

likely than not. The Tribunal must apply a degree of flexibility to the balance of

probabilities taking into account the seriousness of the allegation, and the gravity of the

consequences flowing from a particular finding.3

30. The Tribunal is also required to consider each particular independently and then

cumulatively, in the context of determining whether the overall charge is established.4

Is the charge established?

31. The practitioner has admitted the charge. Nevertheless, the Tribunal must still satisfy

itself that the charge is established. The Tribunal is satisfied that the charge is

established on the following basis:

(a) First, the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence presented and admitted that Dr

Farr did act as alleged in particulars 1 to 4 and that this conduct amounts to

malpractice and is likely to bring discredit to the profession of radiologists and

health practitioners more generally; and

(b) Secondly, the Tribunal is satisfied that this established conduct in particulars 1 to

4 both separately and cumulatively, amounts to professional misconduct as it is

conduct that amounts to a significant and serious departure from accepted

standards of conduct by a health practitioner.

32. Professional misconduct is therefore established under both s100(1)(a) and s100(1)(b)

of the Act.

3 Z v Complaints Assessment Committee [2009] NZLR 1 and followed by this Tribunal in PCC v

Karagiannis 181/Phar08/91P 4 Duncan v Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee [1986] 1 NZLR 513, CA 75/85

9

Penalty

33. The Tribunal, once satisfied the charge is established, must go on to consider whether it

is appropriate to order any penalty under s101 of the Act. The penalties may include:

(a) Cancellation of registration;

(b) Suspension of registration for a period not exceeding 3 years;

(c) A fine not exceeding $30,000;

(d) An order that the practitioner may only practise in accordance with any

conditions as to employment, supervision or otherwise, such conditions not to be

imposed for more than 3 years;

(e) An order that the health practitioner is censured;

(f) An order that the practitioner pay part of all of the costs of the Tribunal and/or

the PCC.

34. The Tribunal adopts the sentencing principles as contained in Roberts v Professional

Conduct Committee5 in which Collins J identified the following eight factors as

relevant whenever the Tribunal is determining an appropriate penalty. In particular, the

Tribunal is bound to consider what penalty:

(a) most appropriately protects the public and deters others;

(b) facilitates the Tribunal’s important role in setting professional standards;

(c) punishes the practitioner;

(d) allows for the rehabilitation of the health practitioner;

(e) promotes consistency with penalties in similar cases;

(f) reflects the seriousness of the misconduct;

(g) is the least restrictive penalty appropriate in the circumstances; and

5 [2012] NZHC 3354 at [44]-[51]

10

(h) looked at overall, is the penalty which is “fair, reasonable and proportionate in

the circumstances.”

PCC submissions on penalty

35. The PCC submits the penalties imposed by the Tribunal should serve three purposes.

Firstly, maintaining professional standards and deterring others; second, protecting the

public; and thirdly, assisting with the practitioner’s rehabilitation. The PCC invites the

Tribunal to impose penalties on the practitioner as follows:

(a) Censure; and

(b) Conditions to be imposed upon the practitioner after recommencing practice for

a period of three years, including:

i. immediately on his return to practice, the practitioner undertakes a clinical

assessment for fitness to practice;

ii. not being permitted to work in sole practice;

iii. a prohibition from prescribing certain drugs;

iv. to register with and maintain appropriate contact with a General

Practitioner;

v. to maintain a therapeutic relationship with a psychiatrist and/or specialist

in addiction management;

vi. to undergo regular and routine drugs testing;

vii. to comply with all requirements fixed by, and agreements with, the

Medical Council Health Committee, including in relation to treatment and

drugs testing;

viii. to remain abstinent from alcohol or other mood-altering drugs;

ix. that he consents to his treating clinicians sharing his health information

with the Health Committee;

11

x. that he advises future employers and anyone else he works with as a

professional colleague of the Tribunal’s decision and conditions on his

practice.

36. The PCC noted that previous restrictions and monitoring imposed on the practitioner

by both his District Health Board employer and the Health Committee had failed to

prevent a relapse. In these circumstances, the PCC submits the case would have

warranted a period of suspension if the practitioner had not already voluntarily removed

himself from practice for the last two years.

37. The PCC submits that in considering the appropriate penalty, the following aggravating

features are particularly relevant:

(a) The multiple instances of misconduct; this was not a matter of a “one off”

mistake or poor judgment;

(b) The likelihood of premeditation, given the practitioner accessed the medications

room on three occasions he was not rostered to work;

(c) The fact the practitioner, although receiving support for his addiction, had

relapsed for the third time;

(d) The practitioner’s failure to disclose the relapse or seek support or assistance for

it, prior to being confronted, despite his duty to disclose any health concerns

(including addictions) to the Medical Council;

(e) The medications the practitioner admitted taking were prescription medications

and drugs of abuse;

(f) There was a significant risk the practitioner may have been under the influence

of drugs while at work, raising patient safety issues. On one occasion, he

misappropriated medication and/or equipment when rostered on to work.

(g) The implication of another health practitioner when, on one occasion, the

practitioner used their swipe card to enter the medication room. Albeit, the PCC

acknowledged Dr Farr’s position that he had taken that swipe card by accident.

12

(h) The practitioner’s breach of professional and employment obligations; namely to

act with honesty and integrity.

38. The PCC acknowledged the following mitigating factors:

(a) The practitioner’s early admission of wrongdoing;

(b) Steps taken by the practitioner, shortly after the discovery of his misconduct by

the hospital, to address his addiction issues. These steps have included his

voluntary admission into a residential treatment programme; and

(c) The lack of patient harm. There was no evidence Dr Farr was providing or

supplying controlled drugs to others or of any complaints about the practitioner’s

clinical practice.

Penalty submissions for the practitioner

39. On behalf of the practitioner, Mr Waalkens accepted the appropriate penalty should be

a censure, conditions on the practitioner’s practice and a contribution to costs. The

conditions specified by Mr Waalkens were substantially the same as those proposed by

the PCC. Mr Waalkens noted a suspension was unnecessary given the practitioner had

not been practising for over two years.

40. In relation to aggravating and mitigating factors, Mr Waalkens made the following

points during the hearing:

(a) This case did not involve any fraudulent intention on the part of the practitioner

or deliberate attempts to cover up his misconduct, in contrast to other cases

involving similar conduct.

(b) There was no evidence the practitioner was under the influence of drugs at any

time while he was at work. Mr Waalkens strenuously objected to this being

raised by the PCC.

(c) There was no harm to any patient as a result of the practitioner’s conduct.

(d) The practitioner had not been the subject of any convictions or prior adverse

disciplinary findings.

13

(e) Mr Waalkens objected to the PCC’s submission the conduct was premeditated.

He submitted the conduct was not deliberate and premeditated in the classic

sense, having occurred in the context of the practitioner’s drug addiction issues.

He relied on an expert opinion from Professor Doug Sellman, a Consultant

Psychiatrist & Addiction Medicine Specialist, that the practitioner’s behavior

was “motivated by internal forces in response to initiating cues; the majority of

which are outside his immediate consciousness”. Mr Waalkens also objected to

the PCC’s submission the practitioner had not sought assistance prior to being

confronted. He advised the practitioner had self-reported his issues to a senior

colleague and to the Health Committee.

(f) The practitioner had a significant fall from grace – he had lost his job, his family

life had deteriorated and his financial situation was poor.

(g) The practitioner had cooperated throughout and had shown insight by removing

himself from practise to attend to his rehabilitation

41. The practitioner relied on an expert opinion produced from Professor Sellman.

Professor Sellman confirmed the practitioner suffered from drug addiction issues. Of

particular relevance to the Tribunal was Professor Sellman’s opinion that a return to

practice would be very beneficial for the practitioner’s recovery, and that a punitive

approach was more likely to have negative consequences on his condition rather than

encourage him to modify it.

42. The practitioner also relied on a report from Dr Gordana Jeremic, his clinical

psychologist. Dr Jeremic also confirmed the practitioner’s addiction issues and the

positive effect returning to practice would have on his recovery.

43. The practitioner also submitted a number of supportive character and professional

references from colleagues. The references confirmed there were no concerns about

the practitioner’s professional capabilities and that with adequate treatment, colleagues

would be comfortable working with Dr Farr.

14

Comparative cases on penalty

44. The Tribunal was referred to a number of cases in which health practitioners have been

disciplined for professional misconduct relating to their misuse of prescription drugs, in

the context of the practitioner suffering from addiction issues.6

45. The Tribunal considers the most helpful cases included:

(a) ANG v PCC7 - over a period of eight years, the practitioner misappropriated

controlled drugs from his practice and falsified entries in the Controlled Drugs

Register and in-patient notes to cover this up. He was censured, fined $8,000,

had conditions imposed on his practice for three years and was ordered to pay

$18,000 costs.

(b) Dr T8 - Dr T wrote false prescriptions for her own use and was charged with the

criminal offence of using a document for a pecuniary advantage (the charge was

withdrawn by agreement with the Police). The Tribunal took into account the

offending was in the context of the practitioner’s addiction. The practitioner was

censured, conditions imposed on her practice and ordered to pay costs of $6,600.

Suspension was not ordered as Dr T had not practised for a period of time.

(c) PCC v Keshvara9 - The practitioner forged a colleague’s signature to obtain

drugs. He had a long addiction history which included previous convictions and

disciplinary proceedings. However, there was no suggestion that patient safety

had ever been compromised. The practitioner, who was still practising at the

time of the Tribunal hearing, was suspended for 12 months, conditions were

imposed on his practice for three years and he was ordered to pay a third of

costs.

6 ANG v PCC [2016] NZHC 2949; Dr T (Med14/272P); Keshvara (53/Med06/29P); Dr Craig

(844/Med16/348P); Dr K (140/00/63C); Dr E (345/Med10/155P); Aitcheson (200/Med07/80P); A v

PCC [2008] NZHC 1387; Dr Hodgson (740/Med15/315P); Kilbride (161/Nur08/83P) and

(183/Nur08/83P); Bushell (408/Nur11/185P); Lawson (644/AT14/273P). 7 ANG v PCC [2016] NZHC 2949. 8 Dr T (Med14/272P). 9 Keshvara (53/Med06/29P).

15

(d) Dr Craig10 - The practitioner admitted a charge of professional misconduct after

prescribing drugs of abuse to herself over a 15-month period, by fraudulently

writing prescriptions in the names of others. She had previously been warned by

the Medical Council about self-prescribing. She was censured, had conditions

imposed on her practice and was ordered to pay 30% contribution to costs.

Tribunal consideration of penalty

46. The practitioner’s offending is a product of his addiction and while this does not excuse

the misconduct, it does explain why the offending occurred. This does require the

Tribunal to consider the potential for rehabilitation. The Tribunal also agrees with Mr

Waalkens, that previous cases involving misuse of drugs and addiction issues generally

involve a level of fraudulent behavior, such as the writing of false prescriptions. In this

case, there was no such conduct, though dishonesty was still evident.

47. The Tribunal accepts the opinions of Professor Sellman and Dr Jeremic that a return to

practice would be highly beneficial to the practitioner’s recovery. The practitioner’s

competence is evident from the references provided and there is scope for him to return

to practice with the right treatment and support.

48. However, the Tribunal must balance the objectives of the professional disciplinary

regime, particularly the need to protect the public. In this case, the Tribunal accepts

there is no evidence the practitioner’s conduct detrimentally affected any member of

the public.

49. The Tribunal has taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors

referred to by both counsel. It has also assessed the sentencing principles and previous

cases.

50. The Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to impose the following penalties

which together are the proportionate penalty overall, while still allowing for the

rehabilitation of the practitioner. The Tribunal orders:

(a) A censure; and

10 Dr Craig (844/Med16/348P).

16

(b) Conditions to be imposed on the doctor’s return to work which will be aimed

primarily at the protection of the public and the rehabilitation of the doctor.

These conditions are set out in full below on the final pages of this decision

under “Orders of the Tribunal”. In the main, these conditions are imposed for

the maximum period of three years. We consider this is necessary given the

previous relapses Dr Farr has suffered which indicate the need for on-going

monitoring.

Costs

51. The PCC submitted that a 20-30% contribution to costs was appropriate. On behalf of

the practitioner, it was submitted any contribution to costs should be minimal. The

practitioner provided a declaration of financial means evidencing his poor financial

position.

52. The Tribunal’s costs and disbursements incurred up to and including the date of

hearing were $18,478. The PCC costs and disbursements claimed amounted to

$22,535.50.

53. The Tribunal records that it has used as a starting point that a health practitioner will

generally be expected to contribute 50% of the actual and reasonable costs of the

Tribunal and PCC.11 However, in the present case the Tribunal has determined that a

further discount is appropriate to reflect the practitioner’s co-operation and financial

circumstances. The practitioner should nevertheless properly contribute to the costs

arising from her misconduct.

54. The Tribunal considers it is proper for the practitioner to contribute $5,000 to the

Tribunal’s costs and $5,000 to the PCC’s costs, which equates to approximately 25%

of the Tribunal and PCC’s costs.

Orders of the Tribunal

55. The Orders of the Tribunal are as follows:

(a) The charge laid against Dr Farr under s100(1)(a) and (b) of the Health

Practitioners Competence Assurance Act is established;

11 Coorey v PCC, AP 23/94, 14 September 1995, Doogue J

17

(b) Dr Farr is censured to mark the Tribunal’s disapproval of his conduct the subject

of the charge.

(c) The following conditions are imposed on his return to practise:

(i) Immediately after recommencing practice, Dr Farr will undertake a

clinical assessment to be undertaken by a medical practitioner approved by

the Medical Council Health Committee, to assess Dr Farr's fitness to

practise. This will be paid for by Dr Farr.

In respect of the remaining conditions, they are all imposed for a period of three

years as from the date Dr Farr recommences practise:

(ii) Dr Farr will not be permitted to work in sole practice or in a sole charge

role within a practice, or engage in emergency response medical work;

(iii) He will be prohibited from prescribing, administering, and/or accessing

controlled drugs of all classes, A, B, and C, as defined in the Misuse of

Drugs Act 1975. The practitioner will also be prohibited from prescribing

other prescription drugs, particularly Tramadol, Cyclizine and Naloxone;

(iv) Dr Farr will be required to undertake ongoing clinical supervision with a

professional peer at his expense. This clinical supervision is to occur

quarterly for the first 12 months, and thereafter as determined necessary

by the Health Committee for the remainder of the three-year period;

(v) Dr Farr is to maintain a therapeutic relationship with a psychiatrist

specialising in addiction management for a duration and frequency to be

determined by that specialist psychiatrist, in consultation with the Health

Committee;

(vi) Dr Farr is to undergo regular drug testing no less than quarterly each year,

and that drug testing to be completed and reported to the Health

Committee at Dr Farr's expense;

(vii) Dr Farr is to comply with all requirements, including those of the Health

Committee of the Medical Council and the Royal Australasian and New

Zealand College of Radiologists;

18

(viii) Dr Farr is to register with and maintain regular contact with a vocationally

registered general practitioner, being one of his choosing but also

approved by the Medical Council;

(ix) Dr Farr is to abstain from all alcohol and mood-altering drugs, except any

drugs that may be prescribed by his general practitioner or psychiatrist;

and

(x) Dr Farr is to consent to his treating clinicians sharing his health

information with the Health Committee of the Medical Council; and

(xi) Dr Farr is to advise all future employers, and any partners or shareholders

in any company or medical practice where he may work, of the conditions

set out in this decision.

(d) The practitioner is further ordered to pay a contribution of approximately 25% of

the total costs of the PCC and the Tribunal ($41,013.50), which amounts to

$10,000 to be paid as follows:

i. $5,000 in respect of the costs and disbursements of the Tribunal; and

ii. $5,000 in respect of the costs and disbursements of the PCC.

(e) The Tribunal directs the Executive Officer publish a copy of this decision on the

Tribunal’s website, together with a summary. It further directs that the

Executive Officer publish a notice stating the effect of the Tribunal’s decision in

the New Zealand Medical Journal.

DATED at Auckland this 20th day of June 2018

MJ Dew, Chairperson

Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal