Date: 25 February 2026
The recent, widespread allegations against Melbourne gynaecologist Dr Simon Gordon have shocked the community and raised profound questions about patient safety and medical accountability. Following an extensive investigation by ABC’s Four Corners, the matter has been formally referred to Victoria Police, prompting a necessary public conversation about the line between medical negligence and criminal conduct.
This article explores the potential criminal law implications of such allegations, providing a general overview of the legal principles at play.
Disclaimer: It is crucial to state at the outset that these are, at present, serious allegations that are under investigation. Dr Gordon has reportedly denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been laid.
The Foundation of Medical Treatment: Consent
Every medical procedure, from a simple injection to major surgery, requires the valid and informed consent of the patient. In the eyes of the law, any touching of another person without their consent can constitute an assault (or, more specifically, a battery). When a patient consents to a surgical procedure, they are providing a lawful justification for that physical contact.
However, for consent to be legally valid, it must be informed. This means a patient must be made aware of the nature of the procedure, its risks, and any alternative treatments. A key question in the current investigation will likely be whether consent obtained on the basis of an allegedly false or misleading diagnosis can be considered valid. If consent is found to have been invalid, the act of surgery itself could be viewed as an unlawful assault.
From Civil Negligence to Criminal Charges
While most cases of medical error are dealt with through civil claims for medical negligence, in rare circumstances, the conduct can be so severe that it attracts criminal charges. In Victoria, several offences under the Crimes Act 1958 could potentially apply.
- Causing Serious Injury (Intentionally or Recklessly): These are very serious charges that would require the prosecution to prove that a surgeon intended to cause serious harm, or was aware that serious harm was the probable result of their actions and proceeded anyway. This is a high bar to meet.
- Negligently Causing Serious Injury: This is often the more relevant charge in cases of alleged medical criminality. It does not require intent. Instead, it requires the prosecution to prove that the doctor’s actions fell so far below the standard of care expected of a competent medical professional that it warrants criminal punishment. The removal of a person’s organs without proper clinical justification could certainly be argued to meet the definition of “serious injury”.
A Sobering Precedent: The Case of Dr Jayant Patel
The prosecution of Dr Jayant Patel in Queensland remains Australia’s most significant precedent for the criminal conviction of a surgeon. Dr Patel was convicted of manslaughter on the basis of criminal negligence, not for a lack of technical skill during surgery, but for his decision to operate on patients who were unfit for the procedures or for whom the surgery was unnecessary. This case established that a surgeon’s clinical judgment, when exercised with gross negligence, can lead to a criminal conviction.
The Financial Dimension: Allegations of Fraud
Beyond the harm to patients, the allegations also engage laws around financial crime. If it is alleged that a practitioner has billed Medicare or private health insurers for procedures that they knew were not clinically necessary, they could face fraud charges.
Relevant offences include “Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception” under both Victorian and Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth Health Insurance Act 1973 also contains specific offences for making false statements in connection with Medicare claims, some of which are “strict liability,” meaning intent to defraud does not need to be proven.
Where to From Here?
The referral to Victoria Police marks the beginning of a long and complex process. Investigators will need to meticulously review patient files, pathology reports, and expert medical opinions to determine if there is sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges. The community will be watching closely, seeking assurance that patient safety is paramount and that robust accountability mechanisms are in place.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. The law is complex, and the application of these principles depends entirely on the specific facts of a case. Hayton Kosky is not a criminal law firm.