Dentist affair judge wrong, argues AG

GOVERNMENT lawyers have launched a new salvo in the ethical and legal row over a leading dentist's affair with his married patient.

The Attorney-General's Chambers has filed a notice of appeal arguing a High Court judge was wrong to class adultery as 'disgraceful conduct requiring condemnation and disapproval'.

A sexual relationship between dentist and patient is not always an abuse of the dentist-patient relationship, the document argues.

The appeal follows the scathing judgment by Justice Jerome Chan in June on an adulterous affair between University of Hong Kong dentist Philip Newsome, 43, and former dancer Michelle Tomlin, 34.

Mr Justice Chan instructed the Dental Council's Preliminary Appeals Committee to re-examine a complaint made by Ms Tomlin's husband, Norman Tomlin.

The judge criticised the committee for initially dismissing Mr Tomlin's complaint as 'frivolous and groundless'.

But, in a notice of appeal filed this week, Legal Department consultant Bill Marshall QC said the committee had considered the 'unprofessional conduct' case properly.

'The issue before the [committee] was, quite properly, whether the dentist had abused his professional position in order to further an improper association or commit adultery,' the notice reads.

'And the question was whether on the evidence there was a sufficient case for reference to the Dental Council.' The judge failed to recognise the committee had to weigh up complaints of unprofessional conduct in terms of 'contemporary morality, where relevant, as well as of the expectations of the dental profession and public'.

Mr Tomlin's solicitor, Chris Erving, said he had become frustrated by the committee's failure to schedule a new hearing, months after Mr Justice Chan ordered the case to be heard again.

The case has divided dentists and raised the possibility of a revamp of professional guidelines, to take into account changing morals.

The Hong Kong Medical Association warned doctors never to abuse their position by committing adultery with patients, shortly after Mr Justice Chan's judgment.

The body issued a statement distancing itself from members who said relationships were inevitable between some health professionals and their patients.