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

974/Phar17/409P

IN THE MATTER

of the Health Practitioners
Competence Assurance Act 2003
(“the HPCA Act”)

BETWEEN

A PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
COMMITTEE appointed by the
Pharmacy Council of New Zealand.

AND

PARK UNG (TERRENCE WONG,
registered pharmacist of Auckland.

BEFORE THE HEALTH PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

HEARING held at Auckland on Thursday 5 April 2018

TRIBUNAL:

Ms M Dew (Chair)
Ms D Vicary, Mr K Govind, Ms D Earles and Ms A Kinzett (Members,
present via video conference)

Miss D Gainey (Executive Officer)
Mr J Roberts – Video Technician

APPEARANCES:

Ms A Miller for the Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”)
Ms H Stuart for the Practitioner.

 Introduction
1.

Mr Park Ung Wong is a registered pharmacist based in Auckland. A Professional
Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand has
laid a charge against the practitioner before this Tribunal.

2.

The practitioner faces one Notice of Charge dated 13 November 2017. The charge is
that on 19 August 2016 the practitioner obtained convictions under the Crimes Act
1961 for several offences including making a false document, supply of prescription
only medicines in breach of the Medicines Act 1981 and criminal nuisance. It is
alleged that the convictions reflect adversely on the practitioner’s fitness to practise
under s100(1)(c) of the HPCA Act.

The charge
3.

The particulars of the charges are set out below:
“Pursuant to section 81 (2) of the Act, the Professional Conduct Committee lays a
charge that on 19 August 2016 Mr Wong, a registered pharmacist, was convicted in
the District Court at North Shore of the offences set out below, each of which is an
offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of three months or longer:
(a)

Making a false document in breach of s 256(1) of the Crimes Act 1961
(forgery); and,

(b)

Supply of prescription only medicine in breach of s 18(2)(6) and s 78
Medicines Act 1984; and

(c)

Criminal nuisance (x 2) pursuant to s 145 of the Crimes Act 1961.

These convictions, either separately or cumulatively, reflect adversely on Mr Wong's
fitness to practise as a pharmacist. This is a ground on which a health practitioner
may be disciplined under section 100(1)(c) of the Act.”
The hearing
4.

The hearing of the charges before this Tribunal, proceeded on the basis of an Agreed
Statement of Facts and an Agreed Bundle of Documents. The Agreed Bundle of
Documents included the following:
(a)

The Police Summary of Facts;

2

 (b)

Affidavit of Mr Wong dated 23 May 2016, filed in the District Court in relation
to sentencing;

(c)

The sentencing notes of Judge Hinton dated 19 August 2016;

(d)

The District Court Notification of Conviction for Mr Wong dated 10 January
2017;
Mr Wong’s letter to the PCC dated 4 July 2017.

(e)
5.

The practitioner does not dispute the charge. However, it remains for the PCC to
establish the charges to the appropriate standard of proof.

The facts
6.

The chronology of facts set out below is based on the Agreed Statement of Facts and
judgement in the District Court produced to the Tribunal.
“[1] Park Ung Wong is registered with the Pharmacy Council in the pharmacist
scope of practice. Mr Wong also uses the name Terrence Wong. He has
been registered with the Pharmacy Council in the pharmacist scope of
practice since 8 December 2010.
[2]

At all times Mr Wong owned and operated Birkenhead Avenue Pharmacy, in
Birkenhead, Auckland (the Pharmacy).

[3]

On 16 July 2015, Police executed a search warrant at the Pharmacy and
seized documents and electronic devices as part of an investigation into
possible offences against the Medicines Act 1981. The investigation, relating
to the supply of prescription and restricted medicines, was a joint operation
between police and Medsafe. On 17 July 2015, police advised the Registrar
of the Pharmacy Council of the investigation.

[4]

As a result of the investigation, in or around August 2015, Mr Wong was
arrested and charged with offences relating to the sale and supply of
prescription medicines, restricted medicines, and forgery.

[5]

On 2 September 2015, the Pharmacy Council suspended Mr Wong’s
practicing certificate under s 69(2)(a) of the Health Practitioners
Competence Assurance Act 2003.

3

 [6]

On 26 May 2016, following a sentencing indication, Mr Wong pleaded guilty
to five charges relating to the sale and supply of prescription medicines and
forgery. For the purpose of the sentencing indication Mr Wong prepared an
affidavit which is at page 18 of the agreed bundle of documents. Mr Wong
also provided the court with various references, which are set out as pages
33-65 of the agreed bundle of documents.

[7]

0n 19 August 2016, Mr Wong was convicted at the District Court at North
Shore of:
(a) Making a false document (a prescription) in breach of s 256 of the
Crimes Act 1961 (forgery);
(b) Criminal nuisance relating to: the sale of the prescription medicine
zoplicone to a customer; a representative charge relating to the sale of
excessive quantities of restricted medicines containing codeine and
ibuprofen to three customers between 11 September 2013 and 16 July
2015; and the sale of restricted medicines containing codeine to one
patient on 16 July 2015, in breach of s 145 of the Crimes Act 1961
(criminal nuisance); and
(c) A representative charge of supplying a prescription medicine
(paracetamol + codeine) to several patients between September 2014
and 16 July 2015 in breach of s 18(2) and 18(6) and s 78 Medicines Act
1981.

[9]

Mr Wong was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention and 200 hours
community service.

[10] The Pharmacy Council subsequently appointed a PCC to investigate Mr
Wong’s conviction. Mr Wong was invited to make submissions and/or to be
heard on the matter. Mr Wong provided a letter to the PCC dated 4 July
2017. The PCC resolved to lay a charge before the Tribunal.
[11] Mr Wong admits that his convictions reflect adversely on his fitness to
practice as a pharmacist under s 100(1)(c) of the Act.”
District Court sentencing notes
7.

The sentencing notes of Judge Hinton set out the details of the offending as follows at
paragraphs [7] to [20]:
4

 “[7] The first criminal nuisance charge relates to the sale of zopiclone. Zopiclone is
a prescription medicine used in the treatment of insomnia. It is recommended to be
taken on a short-term basis as dependence is know to occur with prolonged use. It is
known to pose various risks to the health of patients including a risk of fatal overdose.
As a prescription medicine, zopiclone cannot be sold without a prescription. The
Ministry of Health data sheet on this product states that a single tablet should be taken
before retiring, for a maximum of two to four weeks.
[8]

Mr N was a customer at your pharmacy between May 2013 and January 2015.

He [ ] and regularly visited your pharmacy.

He had been identified as being

dependent on zopiclone. A restriction notice had been issued concerning him. The
notice was provided to every prescriber and pharmacist by the Ministry of Health and
a copy was located at your pharmacy.

You dispensed zopiclone to Mr N, who

presented fraudulent prescriptions to you, despite the restriction notice having been
issued precluding this.
[9]

On 25 February 2014, Mr N presented a particular fraudulent prescription, said

to be prescribed by Dr Sandhu. You checked at the relevant medical centre and were
advised that Mr N had not been prescribed zopiclone and you were informed of the
restriction notice in relation to Mr N.
[10] Despite being informed that the prescription was not valid, and of the restriction
notice, you dispensed zopiclone to Mr N. You subsequently dispensed it to him in
September and October 2014 without valid prescriptions. Again, on 5 January 2015,
you dispensed zopiclone to Mr N without a valid prescription. Later, on 5 January or
early on 6 January 2015, Mr N consumed zopiclone tablets.

He also consumed

medicines containing codeine. He had an overdose reaction.
[11] On 6 January 2015, Mr N was located by his [ ] in a serious medical condition
and taken to [ ] Hospital by ambulance. He had [ ] and was kept on life support
throughout 6 January in order for his organs to be donated. On 7 January he was
disconnected from life support and declared deceased. His death was caused by mixed
drug toxicity from both zopiclone and codeine.
[12] The forgery charge concerns your actions following learning of Mr N’s state of
health on 6 January. On 8 January 2015, at your pharmacy, you located the previous
fraudulent prescription for Mr N dated 25 February 2014 and purportedly prescribed

5

 by Dr Sandhu. You photocopied the prescription covering the previous dispensing
sticker label using a small white sticker.
[13] Using this modified copy, you made a further photocopy, this time covering the
date of the prescription and the doctor’s signature. You modified this to include the
date of 5 January 2015 and forged Dr Sandhu’s signature. This made a document that
appeared to be a prescription for Mr N dated 5 January for 30 zopiclone tablets.
[14] The remaining two criminal nuisance charges relate to the excessive supply of
restricted medicines containing codeine to three customers.

First, the supply of

codeine products to Mr N who would regularly purchase restricted medicines
containing ibuprofen and codeine.
Ibucode Plus.

These were Nurofen Plus and Panafen and

On the majority of occasions these products were in packet sizes

consisting of 30 tablets. You sold at least 176 packets of these medicines to Mr N on at
least 114 occasions.
[15] As a pharmacist you knew of the risk to the health of Mr N posed by supplying
the medicines to him in such high doses and on a regular basis. Specifically, you knew
or ought to have known that the risks posed by zopiclone and codeine are greater
when they are taken together.
[16] The second customer was Ms H who was a customer between May 2014 and
June 2015. She developed a strong dependency on Nurofen Plus and purchased
increasing amounts of the product on a regular basis from you. There was a regular
pattern of purchase of multiple packets of Nurofen Plus on a no questions asked basis.
[17] In June 2015 she was admitted to [ ] Hospital with life threatening health
conditions due to the excessive amount of Nurofen Plus she was consuming. During
this hospital stay, she disclosed to hospital staff that she was consuming two packets of
Nurofen Plus per day after obtaining easy access to the medicine.
[18] The third customer was Ms D, a customer between September 2013 and July
2015, who also purchased multiple packets of Nurofen Plus on a “no questions asked”
basis.
[19] As a pharmacist you knew of the risks to her health posed by supplying the
medicine to her in such high doses and on a regular basis and, by February 2015, you
knew of Mr N’s death. The final criminal nuisance charge involves the sale of Nurofen
Plus to Ms D in June and July 2015.

6

 [20] The fifth charge relates to the supply of the prescription medicine, Paracetamol
and codeine, without a prescription. To a particular customer, 8300 tablets were sold.
To other customers, 3500 tablets were sold.”
The relevant law
8.

The practitioner is charged under s100(1)(c) 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 – ….
(c) the practitioner has been convicted of an offence that reflects adversely on
his or her fitness to practise; or

9.

The role of the Tribunal is to conduct an objective analysis of the charge measured
against the standards of responsible professional peers taking into account patient
10.

The Tribunal is mindful of the direction provided in the judgment of Elias J. on
page 15 in B v Medical Council of New Zealand:1
“The structure of the disciplinary processes set up by the Act, which rely in large
part upon judgment by a practitioner’s peers, emphasises that the best guide to
what is acceptable professional conduct is the standards applied by competent,
ethical and responsible practitioners. But the inclusion of lay representatives in the
disciplinary process and the right of appeal to this court indicates that usual
professional practice, while significant, may not always be determinative: the
reasonableness of the standards applied must ultimately be for the court to
determine, taking into account all the circumstances including not only usual
practice but also patient interests and community expectations, including the
expectation that professional standards are not to be permitted to lag.

The

disciplinary process in part is one of setting standards,”
11.

There are two elements of the charge that must be established under s100(1)(c) of
the Act, namely that:

7

 (a)

Mr Wong was convicted of the offence as charged under the Crimes Act
1961; and

(b)

That the offence reflects adversely on his fitness to practise as a registered
health practitioner.

12.

It is further noted that the Tribunal may only make a finding under s100(1)(c) of the
Act if the conviction concerned has been entered by any court for an offence
punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 months or longer.2

13.

This Tribunal and the Courts have previously considered the meaning of “fitness to
practise” under s100(1)(c) of the Act, in relation to other practitioner conviction
charges.3 It is clear from this body of case law, that conduct which offends the law
will usually be regarded as adversely affecting the practitioner’s fitness to practise.
This is certainly the case in relation to any conviction for a dishonesty offence.
“Fitness to practise” in the context of a conviction is not restricted to consideration
of the practitioner’s clinical ability. It involves a wider consideration of whether the
practitioner’s conviction reflects adversely on their overall fitness to practise,
because the conduct leading to the conviction was either immoral, unethical, or
otherwise failed to uphold the law.

Tribunal consideration of the charge
14.

The conviction is clearly established on the basis of the Notice of Conviction issued
by the District Court at North Shore.

This notice confirms the practitioner’s

conviction in the District Court at Auckland as charged.
15.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the offences on which Mr Wong was convicted are all
punishable under the Crimes Act 1961 by a term of imprisonment of 3 months or
longer, as required under s100(2)(b) of the HPCA Act. The forgery conviction
carries a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment, the criminal nuisance charges
carries a penalty of up to one year imprisonment, and the supply of prescription only

1
2
3

Noted in [2005] 3 NZLR 810.
Section 100(2)(b) of the HPCA Act.
Winefield (60Phar06/30P), Dalley (MPDT decision 8/97/4C), PCC v Martin, Gendall J HC, CIV
2006-485-1461 (27/02/07), Pellowe (137/Phar07/74P); Pollock, 95/Nur06/38P
8

 medicines in breach of the Medicines Act carries a penalty of 3 months
imprisonment.
16.

The Tribunal is also satisfied that the offence does reflect adversely on Mr Wong’s
fitness to practise. Mr Wong has failed to act in accordance with the high standards
of professional conduct expected of the Pharmacist profession. It is significant that
this dishonest conduct was in the course of his work as a pharmacist. The offending
involves a serious lack of judgment and caused serious harm to two patients and
risked serious harm to others. This must inevitably reflect adversely on his fitness
to practise as a pharmacist.

17.

The charge as laid against the practitioner under s100(1)(c) of the HPCA Act is
established.

Penalty
18.

The Tribunal, once satisfied that the charges are established, must go on to consider
what penalty is appropriate under s101 of the HPCA Act.

19.

The Tribunal adopts the sentencing principles as contained in Roberts v Professional
Conduct Committee4 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

(h)

looked at overall, is the penalty which is “fair, reasonable and proportionate
in the circumstances.”

4

[2012] NZHC 3354 at [44]-[51]
9

 Penalty submissions for the PCC
20.

The PCC submits that this is an appropriate case for the ultimate sanction of
cancellation of the practitioner’s registration together with censure and costs.

21.

In support of this submission, the PCC invited the Tribunal to consider:
(a)

that the convictions involve serious criminal offending as evidenced by the
maximum imprisonment penalty for forgery and criminal nuisance;

(b)

this was not a victimless crime, one patient died and another was hospitalised,
and Mr Wong’s conduct inevitably contributed to the harm caused;

(c)

Mr Wong continued his offending even after learning about the first patient’s
death due to an overdose;

(d)

The practitioner also took steps to cover up his offending by creating false
prescriptions upon learning of the patient death;

(e)

The lengthy period of the offending for more than 18 months, and in obvious
breach of his professional obligations.

22.

The PCC did acknowledge mitigating features relating to both the offending and the
practitioner, as being:
(a)

Mr Wong admitted his offending at an early stage and has cooperated with the
PCC and Tribunal; and

(b)

He has not previously appeared before the Tribunal.

Penalty submissions for the practitioner
23.

Counsel for the practitioner has urged the Tribunal to see Mr Wong’s offending as part
of a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. It is submitted that at the
time of the offending, he was still relatively young at 31 years old and that drug seekers
prayed on his naivety and his difficulty in declining demanding patient requests. It is
submitted that he panicked after the death of the patient and attempted to hide what he
had done, only making matters worse.

24.

Ms Stuart referred to the insight and remorse that Mr Wong has shown by his
admission of the charge and the steps he has taken since the offending, including
paying reparation to the deceased patient’s family of $30,000.
10

 25.

Mr Wong also produced 24 references from professional colleagues, members of his
church, and friends. The references speak highly of Mr Wong and it is clear that he has
strong personal support from his community.

The Tribunal acknowledges these

references. They are mostly dated from April 2016 and appear to have been produced
for the District Court sentencing in August 2016. There is also one more recent
reference from March 2018 from Mr Wong’s church pastor. There is also a letter of
confirmation from the Department of Corrections that Mr Wong has completed his
sentence showing a “high level of compliance”.
26.

Mr Wong also produced a psychological assessment report dated 27 March 2018,
prepared by Dr Annabel Clarke. This report concludes that Mr Wong’s risk of reoffending is assessed as low and that in her assessment he displays the ability to abide
any conditions deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.

27.

Counsel for the practitioner submits that Mr Wong has already suffered a considerable
penalty as imposed by the District Court. He has also suffered a significant financial
impact by the $30,000 reparation paid and the closure his pharmacy after the criminal
charges were laid. He has only been able to operate the business as a health and beauty
shop since 2015 and this has impacted his earnings since that time.

28.

It is submitted that Mr Wong has learnt a very serious lesson from the criminal charges,
that he has shown genuine remorse and insight, and has the support of his community
and colleagues to return to work.

29.

Counsel urged the Tribunal to impose a penalty of censure, conditions and a
contribution towards costs of up to 10% - 15%. Counsel submitted that Mr Wong has
already served a two-and-a-half-year period of suspension and so a further period of
suspension is not warranted.

30.

Comparative cases on penalty

31.

The Tribunal was referred to a number of previous penalty cases for the purposes of
considering a comparative penalty.

32.

There are a large number of potentially relevant cases. We have set out below the cases
that are most relevant to the present case, while also providing a range of more serious
and less serious cases:

11

 (a)

Pellowe5– a pharmacist was convicted on 47 counts of fraud involving some
$200,000 in overpayments.

He pleaded guilty to the charges, repaid the

amounts overpaid as a result of his offending and served 18 months home
detention. The Tribunal recognised the heavy penalty already paid by the
practitioner in the criminal court but found that despite the various mitigating
factors that cancellation was the appropriate penalty given the offence of
dishonesty was against HealthPac. The Tribunal noted that a clear message
must be sent to the profession that such offending will be treated seriously and
with significant penalty.
(b)

Winefield v PCC6 - Mr Winfield was a pharmacist who pleaded guilty to 22
charges of fraud relating to claims made over 3 years to a value of $10,800. He
was sentenced by the Court to 200 hours community service. The Tribunal
suspended him for a period of nine months and this decision was upheld on
appeal. In this case no direct patient harm was caused.

(c)

Burton 7– a pharmacist was convicted of 58 offences of fraud under the Crimes
Act involving 4 years of overclaiming for medicines either not dispensed or
claimed as dispensed more frequently than they were.

Mrs Burton was

sentenced by the Court to 15 months imprisonment and ordered to pay
reparations of some $14,700. The Tribunal ordered a penalty of nine months
suspension together with conditions on practise and 30% costs. The Tribunal
accepted the case sat in a range lower than Pellowe, given the sums involved
were significantly less.
(d)

Katamat8 - The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to cancel the
practitioner’s registration as a pharmacist.

The case involved serious

professional misconduct over an 18-month period in which Mr Katamat sold
prescription only medicines without a prescription, failed to properly record
prescriptions and supplied prescription only medicines which he should have
known had the potential for abuse or dependency including Sudomyl and
codeine.

5
6
7
8

Pellowe (137/Phar07/74P)
Winefield v PCC Wellington HC CIV 2006-485-2225
142/Phar07/78P
Katamat v PCC [2012] NZHC 1633
12

 (e)

Chiew9- Mr Chiew was a pharmacist convicted of 130 charges under the
Crimes Act relating to HealthPac claims. The total reparation he was required
to make to HealthPac was $220,000. He was sentenced by the Court to one
year’s home detention and 300 hours community service.

The Tribunal

suspended him from practise for 9 months and ordered him to pay costs of
30%.
(e)

Sasha Taylor10- Mr Taylor was an employee pharmacist working with Mr
Wong. In November 2017, Mr Taylor was found guilty before this Tribunal of
professional misconduct relating to his dispensing excessive quantities of
controlled drugs while in Mr Wong’s employment.

He was censured,

suspended for 2 years and ordered to comply with conditions if he
recommenced practice.
Tribunal consideration of penalty
33.

The Tribunal has after careful deliberation, taken the view that cancellation of
registration is the only penalty that can appropriately meet the need to protect the public
and maintain the high standards required for the pharmacist profession.

34.

Mr Wong’s conduct is so contrary to the fundamental principles for pharmacists that it
requires cancellation. The key reasons for the Tribunal taking this view are:
(a)

The serious patient harm involved for two patients who suffered serious
consequences (one died and the other was hospitalised as a result of
overdoses), undoubtedly contributed to by Mr Wong’s unlawful dispensing to
them both;

(b)

This offending is amongst the most serious for a pharmacist as it has occurred
in his professional practice and involved breaches of legal, ethical and moral
obligations that placed the life and health of patients at serious risk;

(c)

The repeated nature of the offending that displayed a serious lack of insight
over a sustained period from September 2013 through to July 2015.

9

180/Phar08/95P
13

 (d)

Mr Wong was made aware of the patient restriction notice and that he was
presenting false prescriptions, yet he continued to dispense excessive quantities
of prescriptions to him until his death;

(e)

Despite being made aware of his patient’s death in January 2015, Mr Wong did
not cease his unsafe dispensing practice but continued to dispense unlawfully
to other patients.

(f)

Mr Wong compounded his misconduct by subsequent attempts to hide his
unlawful dispensing practice by forging a prescription in the name of a doctor
to cover up the previous unlawful dispensing to the deceased patient. Mr
Wong also engaged in other covert behaviour that made it clear he understood
that he was acting in breach of his professional obligations. This conduct
included his hiding the records of dispensing prescription medicines under
“Bioglan” health products as recorded in his pharmacy records and providing
his personal bank account details to patients for payment, as set out in the
Police Summary of Facts.

35.

The Tribunal does not accept that this conduct can simply be explained as that of a
young and naïve health practitioner. The offending involved significant elements of
repeated dishonesty and fundamental breaches of professional obligations. Mr Wong
aggravated matters by also leading his pharmacist employee into the same
misconduct.11 In our view, Mr Wong has taken advantage of his professional position
for financial gain and failed in his duty to act as a gate keeper for patient safety.

36.

We do recognise that Mr Wong has been able to present mitigating features regarding
his guilty plea, potential for rehabilitation and that this is his first offence. However,
we were not satisfied that this is an appropriate case for a rehabilitative penalty. Patient
safety and the need for professional standard setting must take precedence in this case.
A period of suspension would not in our view meet these objectives. As in the
Pellowe12 case, a clear message must be sent to the profession that offences of
dishonesty will not be tolerated and this is doubly so where that dishonesty places
patients at serious risk of harm as in this case. The Tribunal considers that Mr Wong’s
offending is in the same range as Pellowe and Katamat. It is easily placed with the
most serious range because of the evident patient harm caused.

10

932/Phar17/388P
14

 37.

While the character references all speak highly of Mr Wong, it is apparent that they
were also assessing his character, in part, over the same period of his dishonest
behaviour.

38.

The Tribunal is satisfied that censure and cancellation are the appropriate and
proportionate penalties in this case. They are also in line with comparable cases
referred to above.

39.

It will be possible for Mr Wong to re-apply for registration at some stage with the
Pharmacy Council. It is recommended that any application for re-registration not be
considered for a period of two years given the serious nature of the offending. In the
event that Mr Wong is granted re-registration it is recommended that conditions be
imposed that require him to undertake a competency review and that he not be
permitted to practice in sole practice for a period determined by the Pharmacy Council.
Costs

40.

The Tribunal’s costs and disbursements incurred up to and including the date of
hearing are estimated at $11,300. The PCC investigation and legal costs claimed
amount to $10,685.

41.

While the starting point for any award of costs is generally recognised as 50% of the
total costs to be paid by the practitioner, a further discount is appropriate to reflect the
practitioner’s co-operation. We order that he pay 35% of the total costs of the Tribunal
and the PCC.
Orders of the Tribunal

42.

The Orders of the Tribunal are as follows, to take effect from the date of this decision:
(a)

The charge is established under s100(1)(c) of the Act;

(b)

The practitioner is censured to mark the disapproval of his criminal offending;

(c)

The practitioner’s registration as a health practitioner is cancelled under
s101(1)(a) of the Act;

11
12

Sasha Taylor, 932/Phar17/388P
137/Phar07/74P
15

 (d)

The practitioner is ordered to pay 35% of the total costs of the Tribunal and the
PCC, being $3,850 payable to the Tribunal and $3,850 payable to the PCC.

(e)

Permanent suppression orders are made prohibiting the publication of the name
and any identifying features of the patients and any of their family members
named in the charge or the evidence.

(f)

The Tribunal directs the Executive Officer to 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
on the website of the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand and its magazine to
practitioners.

DATED at Auckland this 15th day of June 2018

MJ Dew, Chairperson
Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal

16