The Tribunal found some allegations of professional misconduct established and others not established: allegations concerning FS were upheld only as to failure to obtain informed consent and failure to communicate effectively (not inappropriate touching or failure to wear gloves); all allegations concerning CT were dismissed; allegations concerning CB were substantially upheld including touching of the clitoris, failure to wear gloves, failure to offer a modesty cloth, and failure to obtain informed consent (but not the allegation of keeping a hand on the mons pubis); and allegations concerning OJ were substantially upheld including touching of the clitoris, failure to wear gloves, failure to offer a chaperone, and failure to explain the examination. The judgment does not contain the final orders on sanction, indicating these reasons address liability only with disposition to follow. Key propositions include: the inability to cross-examine a document's maker does not render the document inadmissible in SAT proceedings under s 32, but affects weight; propensity/tendency evidence must be precisely articulated and established before it can be used in aid of proving a charge; and coincidence reasoning must be raised with precision well before closing submissions. The Tribunal declined to find any of the Board's contended propensities established and did not employ coincidence reasoning.
The full text is available to signed-in members.