John Woodforde

Woodforde said the basis for his 'diagnosis' starts on p.2 of his report with the paragraph beginning 'He believes because of innuendo that there have been allegations of misconduct made against him to other staff.' Woodforde claimed to believe this was delusional. A former patient testified at my trial that nurses on the unit had asked her if she was having sex with me, proving my perceptions were in fact accurate. he claimed to believe that what I told him about the 'Mauritian Ambassador' incident had a delusional basis. One morning I was having a conversation with other staff in the front office when David Burke, psychogeriatrician, walked into the office, interrupted one conversation and pointedly asked me 'Did you know the Mauritian ambassador is a child molester?' Everyone knew I was the only Mauritian in the hospital. It was not unreasonable in the circumstances for me to think there was some meaning intended for me. I never told him I thought I was being accused of being a child molester. Woodforde further claimed to believe that my account of 'sarcastic, knowing smiles', 'hostility' and 'cartoons referring to him' had a delusional basis.

I specialised in Eating Disorders and had a higher than average percentage of young good-looking female patients, collectively referred to on the unit as 'Eric's girls'. The nurses also felt they were left to handle disturbed patients on the unit while I spent my time talking to pretty girls about their sexual problems. There really were sarcastic, knowing smiles from some nurses when I took good-looking female patients from the ward for interviews. The hospital's failure to replace the Director of Psychiatry created a power vacuum which some nurses saw as an opportunity to redefine and enhance their role. My resistance to such efforts met with a hostile response from some of the more militant nurses. I never told Woodforde about any 'cartoons'. My only pictorial reference was 'The Rapist' written on the notice board next to my office. I was the main therapist in the unit. I thought this was probably meant for me but I wasn't 100%.

Woodforde accepted I had no hallucinations or formal thought disorder. As nothing I told him was inherently unbelievable, he had to establish beliefs were false and unshakeable before making a diagnosis of Delusional Disorder. He accepted my account could have a factual basis but made no attempt to determine if it did eg by obtaining a collateral history. He labelled me as 'delusional' on the thinnest of grounds despite the devastating consequences, leaving an indelible stain on my reputation. His report states 'He could give me no substantial evidence to support these beliefs or innuendos...' What possible 'substantial evidence' could I give him of rumours and innuendos? The onus is on the clinician to establish whether a patient is delusional, not on the patient to prove he is not. Nothing I told him showed I was 'unfit to practise'.

David Burke, psychogeriatrician, operated six beds on the unit, attended regular unit meetings and frequently interacted with me. We were on call for each other's patients after hours. He gave me evidence at the triad that he had no concerns about my practice of psychiatry in the period before I went on leave, when according to Woodforde, I was 'unfit to practise'. Woodforde's report further states '(fitness to practise)' will largely depend on whether he is prepared to follow the advice of the Medical Board!? Nothing but an attempt to intimidate me into complying with conditions on my registration the Medical Board would later impose. The interview was a setup. The sole objective was to declare me 'unfit to practise'!