Due to a fresh upsurge in various inaccurate media reports surrounding the guilt of psychologist Christa du Toit, herewith the correct facts:
Pretoria psychologist Christa du Toit of Silver Lakes Golf Estate was found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Health Professions Council of South Africa in 2006, for doing a forensic custody-access evaluation and bringing out a report, without consulting the father at all. The penalty imposed was a one year suspension from the register. The penalty was suspended for a period of 3 years. She lodged an appeal against her guilty verdict, and lost the appeal in 2009, in that her guilty verdict was confirmed, and the sentence was substituted with that of a reprimand and caution.
In February 2012 psychologist Christa du Toit issued summons against Dr Pretorius for defamation for R500 000.00, claiming incorrectly in her summons that she had been found not guilty on appeal, which of course is an untruth. She argued that until last week, she was still under the impression that she was found not guilty on appeal. And on that faulty premise, Dr Pretorius is dragged through the courts.
Surprisingly, psychologist Christa du Toit disclosed the names and contact details of all the patients she had consulted over the last several years, and thereby breached the sacrosanct ethical code of patient-therapist confidentiality. The Health professions Council will deal with this matter in due course.
Published 13 September 2013
In finalisation of the case, the following judgement was made today in the North Gauteng High Court Pretoria by the Honourable Justice J Kgomo in case number 8283/2012:
In the matter bewteen Christa du Toit (Plaintiff) and Dr Steven Pretorius (Defendant):
By agreement between the parties, the following is made an order of court:
1. The Plaintiff (psychologist Christa du Toit) withdraws her action in its entirety.
2. The Plaintiff (psychologist Christa du Toit) will pay the Defendant's (Dr Steven Pretorius of Fathers-4-Justice South Africa) costs in the action as well as to re-open the case, such costs to include the costs of two counsel where two counsel were employed.
3. The Defendant and Fathers-4-Justice South Africa undertake that, save for the content of this order, they will not publish any further statement(s) concerning the Plaintiff relating to the findings made by the conduct committee and the appeals tribunal of the Professional Board of Psychology of the Health Professions Council of South Africa, or the subject matter of these hearings or this action.
Published 16 September 2013
Words of appreciation:
Dr Steven Pretorius and Fathers-4-Justice South Africa wish to express their sincerest and deepest gratitude to the wise counsel of attorney Riaan Bosch, advocate Sonnika Mentz and advocate NGD Maritz SC for their unwavering committment to the truth. You are the true custodians of justice.
Let justice always be our sword, and the truth our shield.
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" - in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew - Matthew 6:34
|Registration number &||Nature of complaint||Penalty||Town|
|Name of practitioner|
|Ms CJ Hartshorne||THAT you are guilty of unprofessional conduct, or conduct which, when||The accused pleaded guilty to||Durban|
|PS 0073512/2005/981||regard is had to your profession, is unprofessional in that during 2004||paragraphs 1,2 & 4 of the charge|
|AND IN RESPECT of your patient, you compiled a psychological report||and was found guilty as pleaded.|
|(copy annexed and marked “A”) whilst you:||The accused was suspended for|
|1. you transgressed Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Conduct of the||two years but the suspension was|
|Professional Board for Psychology by conducting an investigation||further suspended for a period of|
|of sexual abuse while you yourself admit that you do not have the||three years on condition that|
|necessary competency in this field; and/or||accused is not found guilty of any|
|2. you transgressed Rule 44(3) of the Rules of Conduct of the||unprofessional conduct during the|
|Professional Board for Psychology by not basing your findings with||period of suspension.|
|regard to the alleged sexual abuse of your patient on information|
|and techniques sufficient to substantiate your findings; and/or|
|4. you transgressed Rule 71(2) of the Rules of Conduct of the|
|Professional Board for Psychology by performing multiple and|
|potentially conflicting roles in psycho-legal matters;|