ACCforum: Bruce Corkill QC - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Bruce Corkill QC Conflicts of Interest ???

#1 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 31 December 2011 - 12:02 AM

Bruce Corkill was admitted to the bar in 1975.

He has been involved in a considerable number of http://www.acc.co.nz appeals,


http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZACAA/

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZACC/

His decision to appeal Kearny though the backdoor is an insult to decent people who have a positive attitude towards their injuries and rehabilitation.

He is a chairperson for http://www.hdpt.org.nz

http://www.hpdt.org....67pfindings.pdf and on the Medical-LegalSociety, amongst other gravy trains.

http://www.wellingto...lsociety.co.nz/

He is also a representative for in the Employment Court.

There are far too many possible conflicts of interest for him to be acting impartially in a fit and proper manner as he is obliged to in his Profession.

A web name search of his name shows he must be costing New Zealanders a considerable amount of our Public Funds through gross incompetence when matters should be addressed at Internal Administrative levels within the said departments as per Public service staff code of Conduct and obligations.


http://www.nzbar.org...ew&Person_id=54

How much is this QC Bruce CORKILL creaming a year from us, as taxpayers, in all his various spots?
0

#2 User is offline   Fighter for Justice 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 23-August 08

Posted 31 December 2011 - 07:14 AM

Mr Corkill is involved in far too many different roles - involving possible conflicts of interest IMHO.

I would have thought being involved in ACC Appeals and role of Chairperson of HPDT was enough of a possible conflict of interest. Yet, Mr Corkill is apparently involved in Medical Protection Society.

Very interesting .........


Fighter for Justice
1

#3 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 31 December 2011 - 04:44 PM

FYI:

http://www.mcnz.org....ocs/EO-HPDT.pdf
0

#4 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:45 PM

See this topic in the link for articles where a Doctor was found to be in possession of objectionable material.

http://accforum.org/...nganui-manawatu


Dr Bruce A CORKILL
was the Chair that is understood to have granted orginal name suppression of Dr Y in this Tribunal.
Here is a decision that involves a Doctor Y who was found to be in possession of objectionable material.

How many of his patients were asked or would have come forward had they known who he was?

Unless names of these offenders are in the public arena in cases like this they may well be getting away with further offending
such is the subtleness of this type of behavior.


http://www.hpdt.org.....aspx?tabid=270

Med10/149P

Precis

Charge N


Med10/149P

Practitioner:
Name suppressed

Charge Characteristics:
Possession of objectional material

Additional Orders:
Practitioner granted interim name suppression: 301/Med10/149P
Practitioner granted permanent name suppression:321/Med10/149P

Decision:
321/Med10/149P

Charge No:

A Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) laid a charge against the Doctor on the basis that he had been convicted of possession of objectionable material and that the offences reflected adversely on his fitness to practice. The Doctor was convicted and sentenced in the District Court on each of the charges.

The particulars of the charge were as follows:

25 Charges of possession of objectionable material (including material containing child sexual abuse images) under sections 131A(A) and (2) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. Such offences are each punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.
One charge of distributing an objectionable publication under sections 124(1) and (2) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. The offence is punisable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

Finding

The Tribunal found that the convictions reflected adversely on the Doctor’s fitness to practice and that it warranted a disciplinary sanction. The Doctor made an early guilty plea to the charge.

Background

The objectionable material was found on the Doctor’s computer and an external hard drive which contained over 400,000 files. It contained child sexual abuse images.

The Doctor was charged, convicted, and sentenced in the District Court to four months home detention (subject to conditions). He was granted permanent name suppression.

The Doctor had a psychiatric diagnosis of paraphilia (involving compulsive masturbation and the use of images when masturbating) that was under the control of medication. The Doctor’s offending did not take place at work or impact on his patients.

The Doctor elected not to give oral evidence before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.

Back to top

Reason for Finding

The Tribunal severely disapproved of the Doctor’s behaviour and said that the offences concerned behaviour which was generally abhorrent to all members of society. The Tribunal emphasised that the public needs to be assured that medical practitioners are of good character and standing in the community, and that a conviction for possession of objectionable material does not place the Doctor within this category.

The Tribunal’s prima facie conclusion was that cancellation of the Doctor’s registration was appropriate. This was based on the:

Nature of the offending;
The fact that the Doctor was not prepared to appear before the Tribunal for questioning;
That there were a number of omissions from the evidence before the Tribunal; and
A consultant psychiatrist has identified there was a real risk that when the Doctor’s medication for his condition was reduced, there would be an increase in the urge to re-offend.

However, the Tribunal considered the need to rehabilitate, and not primarily punish, the Doctor and recognised all of the rehabilitative steps that the Doctor had undertaken (immediate attempts at counselling, psychiatric support, accessing of psychiatric drugs and the Wellstop Programme).

Penalty

The Tribunal censured the Doctor and ultimately concluded that the appropriate penalty was a period of significant suspension from practice. As the Doctor voluntarily gave up his practising certificate on conditions in October 2009, a further suspension of 9 months from the date of the hearing was deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.

The Doctor was ordered to practise under the following conditions for a period of three years after he resumed practice:

Prior to re-registration, undergo a psychiatric/psychological assessment confirming fitness to practice that is acceptable to the Medical Council.
Ongoing oversight by the Health Committee of the Medical Council formalised by way of an agreed Voluntary Undertaking for a period of three years.
Comply with ongoing counselling and/or psychiatric/clinical psychologist input on such conditions as required by the Medical Council for a period of three years.
Comply with other rehabilitation steps considered appropriate by the psychiatrist and/or clinical psychologist (e.g. medication).
Enter into a mentoring relationship, with monthly meetings that will assist in early identification of triggers as established in the rehabilitation programme.
Undertake not to access material, images or publications that are deemed objectionable under the Films, Videos and Publications Classifications Act 1993. The Doctor is to continue to use the internet access safeguards imposed by the Probation Service.
The Doctor is to be responsible for any costs not ordinarily met by the Medical Council in relation to the above conditions.

The Doctor was ordered to pay 20% of the total costs of the investigation, prosecution and Tribunal’s hearing costs. This discount in costs was awarded due to the Doctor’s early guilty plea.

The Doctor was given permanent name suppression to give effect to the District Court’s order of permanent name suppression

http://www.hpdt.org....ecisionanon.pdf

On xxx Dr Y, registered medical practitioner of xxx, was convicted
in the District Court at xxx on 25 charges of possession of
objectionable material (including material containing child sexual
abuse images) under sections 131A(1) and (2) of the Films, Videos
and Publications Classification Act 1993 which offences are each
punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years; and
one charge under sections 124(1) and (2) of the Films, Videos and
Publications Classification Act 1993 of distributing an
objectionable publication which offence is punishable by a term of
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years. The District Court convicted
Dr Y on each of the charges and remarked that the offending had
occurred over a period of years while Dr Y was practising as a
medical practitioner in xxx, New Zealand..
He is listed as Dr Y.


There is a list of unnamed "experts" who appeared in support of Dr Y in the decision.

These unnamed experts sure have rehabilitated this offender very quickly, or is it a case of mates helping a mate?

We are of understanding most offenders like this would be locked up in jail and spend years getting rehabilitation and been subjected to countless Pyschological and Psychiatric Assessments.

Dr Y is understood to have been seeing a psychiatrist and attending the Wellstop Programme, a sexual offenders rehabilitation programme.

We believe in the interests of transparency and integrity those "experts" should be named, besides if Medical Professionals know who
they are and if they find themselves in similar circumstances to Dr Y they may be encouraged to contact them prior to their
offending escalating and harming others.

What do others in the Medical Profesion think?

How do they feel been tarred with the same brush and under suspicion it may be them?

Why is New Zealand so backward by not naming and shaming these Medical people who offend & who we place our trust in?



http://www.wellstop.org.nz/
http://www.wellstop....ender-programme

http://www.hpdt.org....ecisionanon.pdf

Level 13, Mid City Tower, 139 Willis Street, Wellington 6011
PO Box 11649, Manners Street, Wellington 6142, New Zealand
Telephone: 64 4 381 6816 Facsimile: 64 4 802 4831
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.hpdt.org.nz

DECISION NO: 321/Med10/149P

IN THE MATTER of the Health Practitioners
Competence Assurance Act 2003
-ANDIN
THE MATTER of disciplinary proceedings against
DR Y, Medical Practitioner of XX
BEFORE THE HEALTH PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
HEARING: Held in Wellington on 26 July 2010

TRIBUNAL: Ms Kate Davenport (Chair)
Dr Justin Barry-Walsh, Dr Julie Kimber, Ms Amanda
Kinzett, Dr Graham Sharpe (Members)
Ms Karen Crosby (Executive Officer)
Ms Helen Hoffman (Stenographer)
APPEARANCES: Ms Kristy McDonald QC and Ms Jo Hughson for the
Professional Conduct Committee
Mr Harry Waalkens QC and Ms Hanne Janes for the
Respondent



http://www.hpdt.org....dnspracanon.pdf

Level 13, Mid City Tower, 139 Willis Street,
Wellington 6011
PO Box 11649, Manners Street, Wellington 6142, New
Zealand
Telephone: 64 4 381 6816 Facsimile: 64 4 802 4831
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.hpdt.org.nz

DECISION NO.: 301/Med10/149P
IN THE MATTER of the Health Practitioners
Competence Assurance Act 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER of disciplinary proceedings against,
DR Y a registered medical
practitioner of xx

BEFORE THE HEALTH PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
HEARING by telephone conference on Monday 17 May 2010 at 8.30 am.
PRESENT: Mr Bruce Corkill QC – Chair
Ms Gay Fraser – Executive Officer
APPEARANCES: Ms Jo Hughson, counsel for the Professional Conduct Committee
(PCC)
Ms Hanne Janes for the respondent
2
Introduction
1. Dr Y is a registered medical practitioner of xx.
2. On 14 April 2010, the PCC laid a disciplinary charge against Dr Y with the
Tribunal.
3. At a directions conference held on Monday 17 May 2010, it was directed that the
charge would be heard by the Tribunal on Monday 26 July in Wellington.
4. Dr Y made application for interim orders prohibiting publication of his name and
identifying features.

5. The application for an interim order prohibiting publication of name and identifying
features of Dr Y was consented to by counsel for the PCC on the basis that the Court
had order non publication of Dr Y’s name. It was also accepted that the Chair could
make a consent order.

6. The Chair is satisfied that the application for an interim order of non publication of
name was a proper one.

Directions
7. By consent, an interim order preventing the publication and identifying features of
Dr Y is made. This order is to continue until further order of the Tribunal.
8. The making of this order is not to be taken as an indication one way or the other as
to whether a final order would be made by the Tribunal, if such an application was
made.
DATED at this 17th day of May 2010.
................................................................
B A Corkill QC
Chair
Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal
0

#5 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 14 December 2012 - 06:53 PM

Upcoming Annual Scientific Meeting -
Melbourne covention & exhibition centre
May 4-8, 2013

Superstition Dogma & Science
http://www.anzca.edu...ific%20meetings

Program Grid
http://www.anzca2013...m/program-grid/

TUESDAY MAY 7, 2013

Mr Bruce Corkill QC
Participating in medico-legal decision making processes

0

#6 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 19 May 2014 - 05:38 PM

Now also at


Employment Court judge appointed


Christopher Finlayson

27 March, 2014
Employment Court judge appointed

http://www.beehive.g...dge-appointed-2


Bruce Corkill QC of Wellington has been appointed as an Employment Court Judge,
Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson announced today.

Mr Corkill was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2007. He has been a barrister since 1997 and is a LEADR mediator. His major areas of practice comprise employment law, professional disciplinary work and other civil litigation including Trusts and relationship property, ACC, personal injury, and coronial work.

He has been Chairperson of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal since 2006, and is Legal Assessor for several occupational disciplinary bodies including the New Zealand Chartered Accountants Disciplinary Tribunal. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Australasian College of Legal Medicine.

Mr Corkill is a former litigation partner at Johnson Lawrence Elder (1988-97), a staff solicitor, associate and then partner at Riddiford Smyth Johnston & Stevens (1983-88) and a staff solicitor at Agar Keesing McLeod & Co (1975-77). He also practised in England where he was admitted as a Solicitor of England and Wales (1977-1983).

Judge Corkill will be sworn in on 30 April 2014 in Wellington.

Christopher Finlayson
Attorney-Genera
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users