AHPRA forced to review evidence practices after investigator ‘edited’ notes in GP indecent assault investigation

A health practitioner watchdog investigator removed references to an alleged victim of sexual assault at the hands of a GP being “not right in the head” and unreliable.

A South Australian investigator for the national health workers’ watchdog strengthened the case for suspending a doctor accused of a sexual offence by deleting key case notes.

The Adelaide doctor was initially charged with indecent assault against an employee at his suburban clinic. The charge has since been dropped.

The case was investigated by an Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency official.

An SA Police detective told the investigator he had doubts about the “credibility” of the alleged victim but thought he could charge the doctor because he had an independent witness.

Further, the detective recounted that the witness said the alleged victim was “not quite right in the head”.

“(The victim’s) concern was ‘who was going to believe a mentally ill, low income earning woman with a criminal history – drink driving and assault police (throwing toilet water in the cells at police when being detained previously under Mental Health Act),” the investigator’s initial notes of the conversation read.

The notes were later deleted from evidence she presented to the Medical Board of Australia, strengthening the case against the doctor.

The Medical Board successfully applied to the South Australia Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal to suspend the GP’s licence while the AHPRA investigation continued.

Supreme Court Justice Malcolm Blue has now overturned that decision and allowed the GP to return to work under strict supervision. The GP’s case has yet to be finalised.

In a published judgment, Justice Blue said the editing notes was a “serious matter which impacted directly on the reliability of (the investigator’s) evidence”.

A spokeswoman for AHPRA and the Medical Board said once discovered, AHPRA had notified SACAT of the changes to the notes.

“It is really important to protect the integrity of this ongoing legal case, which limits what we can say now,” she said.

“The existence of different versions of a file note in this case was identified by us.

“In relation to the concerns raised by the Supreme Court, we have reviewed the way in which this officer and other investigators make and use file notes of conversations.

“We have also strengthened our advice to members of the team around documenting, authenticating and sharing file notes.”

She said AHPRA had provided a briefing to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman over the notes.

“We have complete confidence in our team and are confident this incident was isolated,” she said.

But AHPRA would not say whether all cases involving the investigator were being reviewed.