A doctor who allegedly had sex with his “submissive” partner at his work premises acted “totally inappropriately” and showed a “complete disregard” for professional medical boundaries, an expert says.

The independent expert said the doctor’s actions amounted to “blackmail” after threatening to expose the images if she didn’t comply with his demands.

The damning opinion was shared in a Health Practitioner Disciplinary Tribunal hearing involving a doctor – who has interim name suppression – who allegedly brought a woman to his work to sign a sexual agreement, and have oral and full sexual intercourse.

But the doctor’s lawyer, Harry Waalkens KC, blasted the expert’s views and questioned whether he was independent at all.

Waalkens said his client rebutted most of the woman’s claims.

Both the doctor and the woman, known as Ms G, are married, and said to have met on a sexual website in mid-2018 before meeting up in person at a bar and agreeing to pursue a sexual, yet secret, relationship on her behalf.

That relationship related to a sexual fetish and involved the doctor acting as the “dom”, or dominant partner, and the woman the “sub”, or submissive partner.

Now the doctor is before the Health Practitioner Disciplinary Tribunal, which has imposed heavy suppressions on the case, including anything that identifies the doctor or the woman.

He’s alleged to have had sex with her at his workplace and later videoed her “submitting” to him.

He’s also alleged to have had her sign a contract about their sex life while at his workplace, provided health services – taking a swab – from the woman, and accessed lab results without authority or justification in 2018.

‘Unprofessional and disrespectful’

In his analysis, the expert also took exception to the doctor’s note that he’d made on his clinical note where he refers to a “bitter break-up and refers to the patient’s vindictiveness”.

He went on to criticise the document as “deeply unprofessional”.

“As a medical practitioner, I find this record disrespectful.”

As for the doctor allegedly filming the woman sexually compromised in his office, the expert labelled it “not only disturbing but reprehensible”.

But after a cross-examination by Waalkens, the expert appeared to soften on his views, after being taken step by step through each statement.

Waalkens began by asking the expert whether, having read the other material in the hearing, he had changed his mind more in his client’s favour.

“No,” he replied bluntly.

Shortly afterwards Waalkens seized on the expert’s use of the word “blackmail”.

“I guess I thought it along the lines of pressuring the relationship to continue,” said the expert, who can’t be named.

“You will be the first one to use the term ‘blackmail’, as an objective and independent expert,” Waalkens replied.

“I’m happy to be corrected if it’s incorrect terminology,” the expert said.

Waalkens also disputed that there was a typical power imbalance in a patient-doctor relationship when the doctor took a swab from the woman, as they were no longer together.

He also put to the expert that when the doctor did the swab, it was “undertaken entirely professionally”.

“I’ve got no reason to doubt that,” the expert said.

Waalkens said the results were also delivered appropriately, and the doctor even gave her antibiotics.

“Although it was unwise, and foolish and an error of judgment to undertake this swab, there has actually been no harm caused throughout that process,” Waalkens asked.

“No physical harm to the patient, no.”

Waalkens also got the expert to agree that the doctor’s clinical notes “were factual”.

“It is factual,” the expert agreed.

In re-examination, Coates questioned whether he was alluding to any other harm when he referred to “physical harm”.

“I think [Ms G] would perceive there was harm from the global situation.

“She felt pressured ... from the actual event of taking the swab.”

‘He can say what he wants’

Meanwhile, two women who met the doctor on different occasions also gave evidence about him showing them intimate videos and photos of Ms G.

Ms F first met the doctor when he visited her house accompanied by a female friend.

“He was describing some sex acts he did with another person and showed us photos of them, and I recognised the person because I had seen her photo [before].

“And then, as well as photos, there was a video.”

When asked by Dr Jonathon Coates of the Professional Conduct Committee what they showed, “in general”, Ms F said they were of Ms G “restrained in different ways and some rope on her decoratively”.

As for whether they were intimate or sexual, Ms F said some of them were.

The doctor’s co-counsel, Sarah Courtney, put to the woman that the doctor never showed her any intimate images.

“That’s incorrect,” Ms F said, “I just said that he did.”

“He denies that he ever showed you any images,” Courtney said.

“He can say what he wants, I guess.”

Courtney then pointed to a message between the pair in May 2023 where she said she couldn’t confirm what she saw.

“That’s because I wanted him to leave me the f*** alone,” she added, saying that she’d had to block him on several platforms.

The doctor had also messaged her partner and friends, she said.

‘Seedy and inappropriate’

Another witness, Ms B, told the tribunal how she met the doctor at an event before going to a party at his house.

“When we got to [doctor’s] house, there were not very many people there.

“[The doctor] introduced himself and offered us a drink.”

She recalled him telling her that he was dating Ms G, but she said she didn’t believe him.

“She was young and attractive, and I found it hard to believe she would be with someone much older and less attractive.”

To prove he was right, the doctor then said, he would “prove it” and proceeded to pull out his phone.

She was expecting to see a text, but then saw a video loading that had Ms G’s face on it.

“I immediately looked away.

“I didn’t want to look as I thought it was something private ... and thought his manner at the time was seedy and inappropriate.”

Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 10 years and has been a journalist for 21.