Hartlepool doctor is cleared of allegations that he took pictures of male patient and behaved 'in a sexually motivated way'

Dr Christopher Valentine was said to have taken photographs of one of the men and to have told him something like it “was a perk of the job getting to take pictures of young lads in their underwear”.

But a medical tribunal found this and the majority of the allegations made against him by four patients to be unproven.

It concluded that his fitness to practise was not impaired and also removed interim restrictions which had been placed upon him while investigations were taking place.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service hearing was told that Dr Valentine qualified as a doctor in 1986 and that his area of practice was Hartlepool.

He was employed by People Asset Management Group at the time of the allegations to provide occupational health services to a large employer in the area.

These included pre-employment medical assessments.

The investigation initially centred on complaints by six men about examinations carried out between May 2017 and March 2018.

Statements by two of the patients were withdrawn before the hearing started.

Got a story for the Mail? Submit your words, pictures and videos here

With regards to the photographic allegations made by one of the remaining men, Dr Valentine was said to have told him that they were for "identification purposes”.

But Dr Valentine said in a witness statement: “I deny at any stage having taken photographs of any kind during the consultations in question.”

The hearing was additionally told that no evidence of relevant photographs were discovered after he handed two phones in for examination.

The tribunal panel also noted that the alleged “perk of the job” comment was not included in one of the patient’s statements and that it considered this to be “a significant inconsistency”.

Dr Valentine did admit not offering any of the patients a “chaperone” and to examining two of the men’s buttocks for needle marks.

But the panel concluded in its judgement: “No part of the medical assessments involved an intimate examination and that Dr Valentine was not under an obligation to offer a chaperone.”

It added: “In summary, the tribunal concluded that Dr Valentine’s conduct did not fall so far short of the standards of conduct reasonably to be expected of a doctor as to amount to misconduct.”