MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and RAVEN [2026] WASAT 84

[2026] WASAT 84 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2010 CITATION : MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and RAVEN [2026] WASAT 84 MEMBER : JUDGE F VERNON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT DR S WILLEY, SENIOR MEMBER DR S RESNICK, SESSIONAL MEMBER HEARD : 17, 18 AND 24 NOVEMBER AND 1 DECEMBER 2025 DELIVERED : 14 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : VR 43 of 2023 BETWEEN : MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA Applicant AND JOHN LINDSAY RAVEN Respondent Catchwords: Vocational regulation - Health practitioner - Medical practitioner - Disciplinary proceedings - Allegations of professional misconduct - Allegations that the practitioner engaged in sexual activity with the daughter of a patient in the early 1980s whilst the patient's daughter was a child - Complaint made in 2021 - Turns on own facts -- 1 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 2 Legislation: Criminal Procedure Act 2008 (NSW), s 293A Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA), s 5, s 139A, s 193(1), s 193(1)(a)(i), s 193(2) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA), s 5, s 19, s 42(1), s 42(2) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation 2018 (WA), reg 4 Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), s 54D(2)(c) Medical Act 1894 (WA), (repealed) Medical Practitioners Act 2008 (WA), (repealed) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(2) Result: Application dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : Ms J McKenzie Respondent : Mr S Pack Solicitors: Applicant : Minter Ellison Respondent : Panetta McGrath Lawyers Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 Azarian v State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 249 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash [2020] WASAT 86 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 -- 2 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 3 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Hewett v Medical Board of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 170 Ho v Powell [2001] NSWCA 168; (2001) 51 NSWLR 572 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 369 Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507 Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60; (1989) 168 CLR 79 Medical Board of Australia and Arunkalaivanan [2021] WASAT 127 Medical Board of Australia and Mullaley [2025] WASAT 99 Medical Board of Australia and Tan [2022] WASAT 57 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170 Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948 Tobin v Eziekiel [2012] NSWCA 285, (2012) NSWLR 757 -- 3 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 4 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 By an application under s 193(1)(a)(i) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia) (National Law), the Medical Board of Australia (Board) alleges that a former medical practitioner, John Lindsay Raven, has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.1 2 The Board alleges that between approximately October 1982 to October 1983, Dr Raven engaged in sexual activity with a patient's daughter (complainant) when she was a child of 15 and 16 years of age. 3 Dr Raven denies that he ever engaged in sexual activity with the complainant. 4 For the following reasons, we are not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Dr Raven engaged in any of the alleged sexual activity. Accordingly, the Board's application must be dismissed. Legal Framework 5 Under s 193(1) of the National Law, the Board must refer a matter about a registered health practitioner to the Tribunal2 if the Board reasonably believes that the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.3 6 Action under s 193(1) of the National Law may be taken in relation to a person who was previously registered, as if they were still 1 The application was originally made under the National Law in force under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) (2010 Act). On 15 May 2024, the 2010 Act was repealed and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA) came into operation (2024 Act). By s 5 of the 2024 Act the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law set out in the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Queensland) as in force on 10 October 2023 applies as the law in Western Australia. For all relevant purposes the provisions of the National Law under the 2024 Act (current National Law) are the same as the provisions of the National Law under the 2010 Act (former National Law). By s 42(1) and (2) of the 2024 Act, the provisions of the current National Law operate as a continuation of the former National Law and the proceedings commenced under the former National Law continue and must be dealt with under the current National Law. 2 For the purposes of the National Law, the Board is the National Board under Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation (WA), reg 4, and the Tribunal is the 'responsible tribunal' pursuant to s 19 of the 2024 Act. 3 Section 193(1) and s 193(2) of the National Law. -- 4 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 5 registered, in relation to behaviour that occurred while the person was registered.4 7 The term 'professional misconduct' is defined in s 5 of the National Law as follows: professional misconduct, of a registered health practitioner, includes - (a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and (b) one or more instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and (c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner's profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession; 8 The definition of professional misconduct is not exhaustive. In Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia, Vaughan JA said that: 'Professional misconduct' under the National Law can include conduct which does not fall within any of pars (a), (b) or (c) in the definition; for example, conduct which was infamous conduct in any professional respect in the sense of being conduct that would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by a practitioner's professional brethren of good repute and competency would be professional misconduct.5 Uncontested factual background 9 There is no dispute about the facts set out in [10] to [18] below and we make findings in accordance with those paragraphs. 10 Dr Raven: (a) was born on 24 July 1937 and is 88 years old; 4 Section 139A of the National Law. 5 Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 (Panegyres) [152] Vaughan JA citing Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 (Allinson) at (763), Buss P and Murphy JA agreeing [11]. -- 5 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 6 (b) is a retired medical practitioner, having held registration as a medical practitioner from:6 (i) 1975 until 9 December 1997; and (ii) 14 December 1999 to 30 September 2021; and (c) was a clinical haematologist at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Perth (Hospital) at all relevant times. 11 The complainant was born in the United Kingdom in May 1967 and has a number of siblings. When she was about 9 years old, her family migrated to Western Australia, and lived in a rural town, where her father worked as a doctor. 12 At all relevant times until December 1983, the complainant attended a school in Perth (School) and lived there as a boarder, while her parents lived in the rural town. The complainant's two younger brothers attended another boarding school in Perth. Another brother lived at a university college in Perth. 13 The complainant was put up a year at school. As a result, the complainant was a year younger than the rest of the students in her year at the School. She was in Year 11 in 1982, when she was 14 and 15 years old, and in Year 12 in 1983, when she was 15 and 16 years old. 14 In about October 1982, the complainant's mother was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukaemia. At all relevant times, from 9 October 1982 until her death, Dr Raven treated the complainant's mother for her illness at the Hospital. Between admissions to the Hospital, the complainant's mother continued to live in the rural town. 15 The complainant's mother was admitted to the Hospital for the first time on 9 October 1982 and was discharged a week later, on 16 October 1982. She was admitted on four subsequent occasions in 1983: for 17 days from 27 May to 12 June, for 9 days from 1 to 9 July, for 31 days from 12 August to 11 September, and from 14 to 15 October.7 16 The complainant's mother died on 15 October 1983. 6 Pursuant to the Medical Act 1894 (WA) (repealed), the Medical Practitioners Act 2008 (WA) (repealed) and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) (National Law). 7 Exhibit 3. -- 6 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 7 17 The complainant sat her Year 12 exams commencing on about 14 November 1983. She graduated in December 1983 and stopped living at the School. 18 The complainant began studying at a university in the Eastern States at the beginning of 1984. Allegations of professional misconduct 19 The Board alleges that:8 (a) Dr Raven met the complainant in the second half of 1982 when she visited her mother at the Hospital; (b) during the period from the second half of 1982 until her mother died, Dr Raven collected the complainant from the School in the late afternoon, weekly or fortnightly, on approximately 10 to 15 occasions and took her on outings; (c) when he collected the complainant from the School for these outings, Dr Raven: (i) on some occasions, took the complainant for a coffee or a meal at a local venue; (ii) on some occasions, provided the complainant with alcohol; (iii) on one occasion, took the complainant to an Italian restaurant in Northbridge for dinner; (iv) on one occasion, took the complainant to Perth Zoo; (v) on one occasion took the complainant to the movies; (vi) on one occasion took the complainant to a hotel in Perth City for a buffet breakfast; and (vii) on one occasion took the complainant to his house where she stayed overnight. (d) on multiple occasions when Dr Raven took the complainant on outings, and before returning the complainant to the School, Dr Raven: 8 Grounds of the Application dated 19 May 2023. -- 7 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 8 (i) parked his car at a park near the School; (ii) put the complainant's car seat back; (iii) kissed the complainant; (iv) touched the complainant's breasts with his hands; (v) touched the complainant's genitals; and (vi) penetrated the complainant's vagina with a number of his fingers and moved his fingers around inside her vagina; and (e) on the occasion when Dr Raven took the complainant to Perth Zoo, he touched the complainant's breast with his hand. 20 The Board relies on the conduct alleged in [19(d)] and [19(e)] as constituting the alleged professional misconduct by Dr Raven. 21 The Board also alleges that, on the occasion when Dr Raven and the complainant were at his house, Dr Raven touched the complainant's arm, shoulder and back. However, the Board did not rely on this conduct as being improper or amounting to professional misconduct. 22 Finally, the Board allege that, in about late 1984 or early 1985, when the complainant was 17 years old, she returned to Perth for a visit, and that, during that visit, the complainant and Dr Raven engaged in sexual activity at a hotel. Again, the Board did not rely on this conduct as being improper or amounting to professional misconduct. Overview of Dr Raven's evidence 23 Dr Raven denies that he ever engaged in sexual activity with the complainant or that he ever behaved in an improper way towards her. 24 Dr Raven admits, and we find, that he knew the complainant and that he took her on some outings in 1983 when she was in Year 12. As shall be seen when we come to the evidence, there is some overlap between Board's allegations about the details of the outings Dr Raven is alleged to have taken the complainant on, and Dr Raven's evidence. However, as well as denying any sexual activity took place on these outing, or at all, Dr Raven disputes the complainant's evidence of the number of such outings, the period of time over which they took place, and who attended the outings. -- 8 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 9 Characterisation of the alleged conduct 25 The Board alleges that the sexual activity between Dr Raven and the complainant occurred when the complainant was a child of 15 and 16 years of age. 26 The Board's case against Dr Raven does not depend on our finding that the complainant was below the age of consent at the time the sexual activity is alleged to have occurred, so that the complainant was unable to consent to that activity, or that the alleged sexual activity was without consent after the complainant turned 16 years of age. That is, the Board does not submit that the alleged conduct was criminal conduct, although, on occasion, that conduct was described by both the Board and the complainant as 'sexual abuse'. The Board did not address us on the applicable law at the relevant time, being 1982 and 1983, nor was any issue of a lack of consent raised. In those circumstances, we have generally used the terms 'sexual activity', being the term used in the application, or 'sexual conduct', rather than 'sexual abuse'. 27 Dr Raven concedes that, if proved, the alleged sexual activity would amount to professional misconduct. In our view, that concession is appropriately made. 28 Dr Raven was the complainant's mother's treating specialist from 9 October 1982 until she died, on 15 October 1983. His evidence was that the complainant's mother asked him to take the complainant on outings. It is not in dispute that, at the time of the alleged sexual activity, the complainant was 15 and 16 years old. Dr Raven was then a man in his 40s. The complainant was vulnerable, to Dr Raven's knowledge, not only because of her age but also because her mother was dying and she was living away from her home and family support in a boarding school. In our view, the alleged sexual activity, if it occurred, would amount to conduct that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by members of the medical profession of good repute.9 Accordingly, that conduct, if proved would constitute professional misconduct. 29 As a result, the issues for determination in this matter are whether we are satisfied to the required standard that: 9 Panegyres at [152], Vaughan JA citing Allinson at (763), Buss P and Murphy JA agreeing [11]. -- 9 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 10 (a) on at least one occasion in 1982 or 1983, when the complainant was alone with Dr Raven in his parked car, Dr Raven kissed the complainant, touched her breast, touched her genitals, and penetrated her vagina with his finger; and (b) on one occasion in 1982 or 1983, when the complainant was at the zoo with the complainant, he touched her breast with his hand. Evidentiary issues General evidentiary considerations 30 The Board bears the onus of proving the allegations referred to in [29] on the balance of probabilities.10 Accordingly, we must presume that Dr Raven did not do the things alleged to constitute professional misconduct unless and until the Board has satisfied us, on the balance of probabilities, that Dr Raven did do those things. 31 In determining the matter, we must consider the evidence as a whole.11 32 After evaluating the evidence, we must feel an actual persuasion of the occurrence of the matters the Board relies on in support of the allegations of professional misconduct.12 The seriousness of the allegations, the inherent unlikelihood of the alleged conduct, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from the findings are matters that all properly bear on whether we are reasonably satisfied, or feel an actual persuasion, that the alleged conduct occurred.13 33 Allegations of sexual misconduct, particularly in relation to a child, are very serious. Such allegations need to be approached with 'much care and caution' and with 'weight being given to the presumption of innocence and exactness of proof expected'.14 34 Clear and cogent evidence is required to establish the underlying facts of the allegations.15 We must be satisfied that the material before 10 Medical Board of Australia and Tan [2022] WASAT 57 at [6]. 11 Panegyres at [106]. 12 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 (Briginshaw) at 361. 13 Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 369 (Lehrmann) at 102 per Lee J citing Briginshaw at 362 (Dixon J); see also Medical Board of Australia and Mullaley [2025] WASAT 99 (Mullaley) at [30] and [31]. 14 Lehrmann at 104 per Lee J citing Briginshaw at 347 per Latham CJ and at 363 per Dixon J. 15 Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash [2020] WASAT 86 (Ebtash) at [55], citing Briginshaw at 362. -- 10 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 11 us is an appropriate basis on which to reach a reasonable decision.16 As the Tribunal said in Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash:17 … Satisfaction that such serious conduct as has been alleged here has been proved will not be achieved by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect references. 35 As the Board has accepted, the outcome of this matter depends on our assessment of the credibility of the complainant's evidence: that is the honesty and reliability of her evidence.18 We must have an actual persuasion, on the complainant's evidence, that the alleged sexual activity happened. 36 Caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions about the truthfulness and reliability of the evidence of a witness based solely on the appearance of the witness. As was said in Fox v Percy:19 …in recent years, judges have become more aware of the scientific research that has cast doubt on the ability of judges (or anyone else) to tell truth from falsehood accurately on the basis of such appearances. Considerations such as these have encouraged judges, both at trial and on appeal, to limit their reliance on the appearances of witnesses and to reason to their conclusions, as far as possible, on the basis of contemporary materials, objectively established facts and the apparent logic of events. This does not eliminate the established principles about witness credibility; but it tends to reduce the occasions where those principles are seen as critical. 37 The difficulty in this matter is that there is very little in the way of contemporary materials or objectively established facts because the events are alleged to have occurred a very long time ago. Indeed, the primary evidence corroborating the complainant's evidence is Dr Raven's admission, albeit in limited terms, that he did take the complainant on outings in 1983, and his evidence about some of those outings. 38 If we are unable to make a finding one way or another, it is open to us to decide the issue on the basis that the Board has failed to discharge its onus to prove the conduct occurred on the balance of 16 Ho v Powell [2001] NSWCA 168; (2001) 51 NSWLR 572 at 575 [14] to [16] (Hodgson JA, Beazley JA agreeing). 17 Ebtash at [55] citing Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170 at 171 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ) and Briginshaw at 362 (Dixon J). 18 ts 24, 17 November 2025. 19 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [31] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ). -- 11 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 12 probabilities.20 That onus is not discharged by mere disbelief in the opposing evidence.21 Inconsistencies in evidence and the effect of trauma on memory 39 The Board submitted that, in considering the complainant's credibility, any inconsistencies between her evidence before us and any earlier statements that she has made are immaterial and do not impugn her evidence on the core elements relied on by the Board, that being the sexual activity. The Board submitted that the complainant's evidence in relation to the particular sexual activity that is alleged was consistent and unshaken. We will address our assessment of the complainant's evidence in due course. 40 However, the Board also submitted that, in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, differences in account are not unusual. The Board submitted that complainants may not always describe the event in the same way on each occasion they are asked about it. The Board referred to the formal recognition of that proposition by the statutory requirement in Victoria and New South Wales that a direction be given to a fact finder, such as a jury, as follows: Experience shows that - (i) people may not remember all the details of a sexual offence or may not describe a sexual offence the same way each time; (ii) trauma may affect different people differently, including by affecting how they recall events; (iii) it is common for there to be differences in accounts of a sexual offence; and (iv) both truthful and untruthful accounts of a sexual offence may contain differences.22 41 It should be noted, however, that these directions also acknowledge that differences in a complainant's account may be relevant in the assessment of the complainant's credibility.23 20 Lehrmann at 132 per Lee J citing Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948 at 955 to 956, Lord Brandon, Lords Fraser, Diplock, Roskill and Templeman agreeing. 21 Lehrmann at [132] per Lee J citing Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507 at 515 per Brennan J. See also Panegyres at [105]. 22 This recites the wording of s 54D(2)(c) of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). Section 293A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2008 (NSW) is essentially in the same terms. -- 12 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 13 42 The Board also relied on the following passage from Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd,24 on the effects of trauma on memory: 1. trauma has a severe impact on memory by splintering and fragmenting memories; such that semantic or meaning elements become separated from emotion; and interfering with the timespan memories require to consolidate and become permanent; 2. due to the potential for cuing of emotional responses to fragmented memories, memory can change, be subject to reconsolidation effects, and even when these effects are not marked initially, memories may remain labile for some time (thus changes in what the person reports as their memory of an event can be expected); 3. lack of clarity and confused accounts can be expected until such time as the memory has consolidated; 4. inconsistencies in reporting following a traumatic event are often observed and explicable through underlying theories of trauma and memory function; 5. omissions can be understood as alterations in awareness due to high arousal at the time of the event that consolidate over time; 6. inconsistency is often observed in reliable reports of sexual assault and is not ipso facto a measure of deception; 7. in understanding the account of an alleged 'survivor', a person must consider how that account was elicited: this includes the skill and attitudes towards the person by the investigating officers; the time elapsed between the traumatic event and the formal interview; and the psychological/emotional state of the person being interviewed at the time of interview; 8. the first forensic interview is potentially a trigger for intrusive thoughts that can lead to fragmentation of memory and dissociation; patterns of behaviour such as high confidence and clarity in the account are not helpful in determining whether the account is accurate; 9. despite the belief that the emergence of inconsistencies across interviews is a sign of lying (people 'can't keep their story straight'), the literature on memory, impacts of trauma and the dynamic between interviewee and the interviewer must be considered; and 23 For example, s 54D(2)(c) is preceded by subsection (b), which provides, 'Differences in a complainant's account may be relevant to a jury's assessment of the complainant's credibility and reliability'. 24 Lehrmann at [117] (Lee J). -- 13 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 14 10. multiple interviews are typically necessary to construct a clear narrative of events; however, the consequence of these multiple interviews may be patterns of inconsistency or omissions especially early in the interview process (which need to be carefully evaluated but are not in and of themselves necessarily indicative of deception or accuracy). 43 This passage reflected the agreement of the parties in Lehrmann, rather than being the trial judge's findings on the evidence. However, we accept that trauma may have a severe impact on memory. That did not appear to be disputed. 44 The practical difficulty in taking trauma into account is that the complainant's oral evidence is the only evidence of the alleged sexual activity said to give rise to the complainant's trauma that might impact on her memory. The starting point must be that we are not to assume that the conduct complained of has occurred, until we are satisfied to the requisite standard that it did occur.25 To the extent that her evidence about that is unsatisfactory, we cannot assume that arises because of the trauma of the alleged conduct. As was said in Medical Board of Australia and Mullaley, to do so would be to reason in a circular fashion.26 45 We accept that inconsistency in reporting is not necessarily a measure of deception and, indeed, that some inconsistency in the complainant's relating of the alleged sexual activity is to be expected. However, inconsistencies may still be relevant in assessing the honesty and reliability of the complainant's evidence, as with any witness. The weight to be given to any particular inconsistency and the effect of that on our assessment of the complainant's evidence will vary according to the significance of the inconsistency and any explanation for it. 'Recent complaint' evidence 46 The Board relied on evidence of what was described as 'recent complaint' evidence as supporting the complainant's credibility about the sexual activity she complains of. 25 Mullaley at [41] and [42]. 26 Mullaley at [41] and [43]. -- 14 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 15 47 The law with respect to 'recent complaint' evidence in disciplinary proceedings was recently outlined in Medical Board of Australia and Arunkalaivanan as follows:27 [46] In a criminal context, evidence of what a complainant told someone else about what occurred is generally inadmissible hearsay evidence. In the case of alleged sexual offending however, evidence of prior consistent recent complaint is admissible by way of an exception to the hearsay rule. This is because people tend to assume (not necessarily correctly) that the victim of a sexual offence will complain at the first reasonable opportunity and if a complaint is not made at that time, a later made complaint is likely to be false. [47] Recent complaint evidence is admissible not to prove the facts in issue but as evidence which buttresses the credibility of the complainant by demonstrating consistency of conduct. Evidence of the making of a prior consistent complaint is only admissible in a criminal trial if it tends to have the effect of buttressing the credibility of the complainant. When determining whether it meets that test the Court has regard to: a. whether the evidence of a complaint was made proximate to the event about which the complaint is made; b. what happened between the events complained of and the making of the complaint; c. whether there is a question about the statement having been put into the mouth of the complainant; d. whether there is a question of the complaint having been made by a suggestible mind responding to a suggestible question; e. whether the complaint was induced by the relationship between the complainant and the person to whom the complaint was made; and f. all of the circumstances alleged to exist. (references deleted) 48 It is also relevant to note that, in a jurisdiction bound by the rules of evidence, 'recent complaint' evidence cannot be proved by the evidence of the complainant alone because a complainant's own 27 Medical Board of Australia and Arunkalaivanan [2021] WASAT 127 (Arunkalaivanan) at [46] to [47]. -- 15 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 16 statement that they made a complaint cannot add to the credibility of their evidence about the event they complain of.28 49 As has been said, we are not bound by the rules of evidence.29 In this jurisdiction, evidence is generally admitted if it is relevant and potentially probative of a fact in issue.30 However, it is for the Tribunal to determine the weight to be given to the evidence so admitted.31 50 We will discuss the complaint evidence in more detail in due course. However, in our view, the only evidence that could be described as 'recent complaint' evidence was a complaint alleged to have been made to one of the complainant's brothers. The only evidence of that complaint was given by the complainant, as her brother had no recollection of the complaint being made, which we discuss later in these reasons. 51 A second complaint, to the complainant's then boyfriend, was said to have been made about 12 months after the sexual activity had ended. Although the Board submitted that this was also 'recent complaint' evidence, in our view it cannot be described as being proximate to the alleged sexual activity. However, it does evidence that the complainant has been complaining about being sexually abused by a person she identified as her mother's haematologist from approximately a year after the alleged events. Again, this evidence will be discussed in more detail later in these reasons. 52 The evidence said to be 'recent complaint' evidence to the complainant's brother and ex-boyfriend was admitted in evidence without objection. This was appropriate because the evidence is both relevant and potentially probative. However, the matters we have referred to are relevant to the weight to be given to that evidence. Repetition of complaints of sexual activity to counsellors 53 In addition, the Board produced evidence of the complainant's reporting of her allegations against Dr Raven to a number of psychologists and psychiatrists who treated the complainant for mental health issues from about 1997. The Board accepted that this was not 'recent complaint' evidence, because it was not 'recent'. However, the 28 Azarian v State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 249 at [119]. 29 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), s 32(2). 30 Arunkalaivanan at [49]. 31 Arunkalaivanan at [51]. -- 16 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 17 Board submitted that this evidence served to buttress the complainant's credibility because it was inherently unlikely that the complainant would have sought therapy had the sexual activity not occurred. 54 Again, this evidence was admitted without objection. Dr Raven's counsel sought to rely on inconsistencies between the contents of the reports and the complainant's evidence to us, as undermining her credibility. We will discuss this in due course. 55 The evidence of what was said to the psychologists and psychiatrists commencing roughly 15 years after the alleged sexual activity may evidence that the complainant believes that Dr Raven did engage in that sexual activity with her and that she has believed this for a long time. However, in our view, the repetition of the allegations does not make her evidence more reliable: that is, it does not result in her current evidence being more likely to be an accurate recollection of what is alleged to have occurred in 1982 and 1983. 56 Nor, in our view, does the fact that the complainant sought treatment for her mental health issues add to the cogency of her evidence, unless we first assume that the alleged sexual activity occurred. In any event, on the complainant's evidence, she first sought mental health treatment because she developed depression after the birth of her children. The complainant's first child was born in 1995.32 The complainant said that she first sought treatment from a psychologist, Jeannette Lancaster, in 1996 or 1997, as the depression was persistent and not responding to pharmacological treatment.33 She said that the discussion with Dr Lancaster concerned the origins of her depression and her mother's death and the discussion about what had occurred with Dr Raven came up as part of the discussion about what was happening at that time. The complainant said that she thought it arose in response to the therapist's questions.34 Accordingly, it appears that, initially at least, the complainant's focus was not on Dr Raven's alleged conduct as the cause of her depression. 57 Ultimately, we do not consider this evidence serves to bolster the complainant's credit in the way submitted. 32 ts 47, 17 November 2025. 33 ts 47 and 48, 17 November 2025. 34 ts 47, 17 November 2025. -- 17 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 18 Evidence of vulnerability 58 The Board also submitted that the complainant's vulnerability at the time of the alleged sexual activity makes it more likely that conduct occurred. We do not accept that submission. We accept that the complainant was vulnerable at the time of the alleged events, in particular because of her young age, her mother's illness, and her relative isolation at boarding school. These factors might make it more likely that a sexual predator would target the complainant. However, in our view, they do not assist us in determining whether Dr Raven engaged in the alleged sexual activity with the complainant, unless we reason in a circular way, by first assuming that Dr Raven is, or was, a sexual predator. Eye Movement Desensitisation Reprocessing 59 Dr Raven's counsel submitted that we should not accept the complainant's evidence as credible because she engaged in eye movement desensitisation reprocessing (EMDR) between June to December 2020 with a psychologist, Sarah McGregor. It is submitted that there is authority for the proposition that evidence given after EMDR is to be regarded as unreliable unless there is evidence that the witnesses' memories had been reported prior to the EMDR therapy. 60 For the reasons outlined below we have found that the complainant's evidence is unreliable without needing to resort to these considerations. However, we note that: (a) we have no evidence about the effect of EMDR. However, there are decisions of some courts, including in Western Australia, where it has been held that EMDR has the capacity to distort memory, or to cause witnesses to confabulate or create memories; (b) in Western Australian courts, EMDR on its own has not been a basis for excluding evidence, although the evidence may be excluded on the basis of fairness to an accused person. Different approaches have been taken in New South Wales and Tasmania; and (c) there was no evidence that the complainant's memory had been augmented as a result of her undergoing EMDR in 2020. The complainant denied that her memories had been affected by the EMDR therapy. She said that the only effect was that the -- 18 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 19 impact of her memories on her, in terms of symptoms of nightmares, anxiety and poor sleep, was diminished as a result of this therapy.35 In addition, those memories are unlikely to have been influenced by suggestion from Ms McGregor given that the complainant was the only source of Ms McGregor's information about the alleged events. Delay 61 Dr Raven did not suggest that the delay in making a notification to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (Ahpra) evidenced that the complainant was not being truthful about the alleged sexual activity. When asked why she had waited until 2021 to notify Ahpra, the complainant said that she had 'felt a lot of shame and … a degree of guilt and as if somehow I was at fault'.36 In our view, those feelings might reasonably explain why the complaint was not made earlier, assuming that the alleged sexual activity occurred. 62 However, Dr Raven's counsel submitted that, in determining the matter, we should take into account the forensic disadvantage that Dr Raven is under in answering the allegations, given the length of time that has passed since the events complained of are alleged to have occurred. In closing, the Board accepted that Dr Raven was under such a disadvantage.37 In our view, that concession was appropriately made. 63 In Hewett v Medical Board of Western Australia, Miller J said that the observations made in the context of a criminal prosecution in Longman v The Queen,38 by McHugh J, applied equally in disciplinary inquires where a medical practitioner is alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct. His Honour said:39 [32] In the context of criminal proceedings, McHugh J, in Longman v the Queen made the following observations about the fallibility of human recollection in testifying about incidents of sexual misconduct: The fallibility of human recollection and the effect of imagination, emotion, prejudice and suggestion on the capacity to 'remember' is well documented. The longer the period between an 'event' and its recall, the greater the margin for error. Interference with a person's ability to 35 ts 107, 18 November 2025. 36 ts 53, 17 November 2025. 37 ts 265 and 266, 1 December 2025. 38 Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60; (1989) 168 CLR 79. 39 Hewett v Medical Board of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 170 [32] and [33]. -- 19 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 20 'remember' may also arise from talking or reading about or experiencing other events of a similar nature or from the person's own thinking or recalling. [33] At 108 his Honour added the following observations about the difficulty posed to those who are called upon to defend allegations of sexual misconduct in these circumstances: To the potential for error inherent in the complainant's evidence must be added the total lack of opportunity for the defence to explore the surrounding circumstances of each alleged offence. By reason of the delay, the absence of any timely complaint, and the lack of specification as to the dates of the alleged offences, the defence was unable to examine the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether they contradicted or were inconsistent with the complainant's testimony. These observations are equally applicable to a disciplinary inquiry in which a medical practitioner is accused of sexual misconduct … (references omitted) 64 Miller J went on to say that the Board in that case had failed to give sufficient weight to delay, saying: [106] The effect of long delay between the date of allegations and the time at which they are considered by a disciplinary tribunal was the subject of the following observations by McHugh JA in Herron v McGregor: The public interest requires that complaints be lodged and dealt with as expeditiously as possible: see Birkett v James. A person with reasonable ground for complaint, therefore, should pursue it with reasonable diligence. Memories fade. Relevant evidence becomes lost. Even when written records are kept, long delay will frequently create prejudice which can never be proved affirmatively. As the United States' Supreme Court said in Barker v Wingo 'what has been forgotten can rarely be shown'. In some cases delay makes it simply impossible for justice to be done: Birkett v James. In R v Lawrence, Lord Hailsham LC pointed out that: 'Where there is delay the whole quality of justice deteriorates.' … (references deleted) 65 In this case, the alleged events are said to have taken place sometime between October 1982 and October 1983, the latter date being over 42 years before the hearing. There is no dispute that -- 20 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 21 Dr Raven was first made aware of the complainant's allegations in July 2021, when the applicant commenced proceedings in the District Court of Western Australia against Dr Raven and the School (civil proceedings). Dr Raven was first notified of the complaint to Ahpra in December 2021.40 Accordingly, he was not notified of the complaint until at least 38 years after the alleged events are said to have occurred. 66 As a result of the delay, Dr Raven's ability to test or challenge the complainant's evidence, or to mount a defence to her allegations, has been significantly diminished. The usual way of testing a complainant's evidence is very often by reference to the surrounding circumstances and to details which, while not necessarily of significance themselves, may help to indicate whether a complainant is or is not truthful, reliable and accurate. 67 In this case, the complainant is not able to identify any particular date on which any of the alleged events occurred. There were no hospital records to speak of relating to the complainant's mother's treatment, other than a single page comprising a handwritten list of admission dates and the date of the complainant's mother's death. The relevant School records were apparently limited to the record of the complainant's enrolment and her results in Years 11 and 12. There are no records that might have identified the number of times Dr Raven took the complainant out of the School's boarding house or the dates of those outings. A newspaper report was produced late in the proceedings to evidence the date on which Year 12 exams began in 1983, but there was no documentary evidence of when the complainant's exams ended, or when her final assembly took place, or precisely when she left the School. The complainant apparently kept a diary at the time, which has been lost or destroyed.41 68 In addition, at 15 or 16 years of age, the complainant was still fairly young when she alleges these events occurred. She has repeated her allegations, or versions of her allegations, on many occasions. It is trite to say that human memory is fallible, that lengthy delay increases that fallibility, and the longer something is believed the more convinced the witness can be that it has occurred, even if they are mistaken. 69 Accordingly, we consider that Dr Raven is under a significant disadvantage in his defence of the Board's application by reason of the 40 ts 166, 18 November 2025. 41 ts 25, 17 November 2025. -- 21 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 22 complainant's lengthy delay in making the complaint, which we must take into account in assessing the evidence. 70 Whilst the Board did make the concession we have referred to, the Board also criticised Dr Raven for asking the Tribunal to accept his denials of sexually abusing the complainant 'while at the same time failing to give the Tribunal a coherent explanation about when, why and in what circumstances' he took her on outings in 1983. With respect, this suggests a failure to appreciate that, even leaving aside Dr Raven's advanced age, it is entirely understandable that, after four decades, his evidence about those outings would be incomplete, and that there is little more that he can reasonably do by way of his defence other than deny the accusations of sexual misconduct made against him. Failure to call Dr Raven's wife 71 According to Dr Raven, his wife is 84 years old. She was not called to give evidence, although, in his evidence, Dr Raven referred to things that he said his wife had told him. Dr Raven said that he preferred not to involve his wife for a variety of personal and medical reasons, although this evidence was not given to explain why his wife was not called to give evidence.42 72 The Board submitted that we should draw an inference against Dr Raven as a result of his failure to call his wife, and his two children, pursuant to Jones v Dunkel.43 The Board did not specify how they said that drawing such an inference would assist us in determining the matter. 73 The evidentiary principle established by Jones v Dunkel is that the unexplained failure by a party to call a witness may, in appropriate circumstances, lead to an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted that party's case.44 It would entitle us to more readily draw an inference fairly to be drawn from the Board's evidence, by reason of Dr Raven's ability to prove the contrary had he chosen to do so.45 However, it would not entitle us to draw an inference that the 42 ts 253, 24 November 2025. 43 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. 44 Cross on Evidence 13th Edition, JD Heydon at 1215, page 39. 45 Cross on Evidence 13th Edition, JD Heydon at 1215, page 42. -- 22 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 23 evidence would be damaging to Dr Raven nor would it create an admission.46 74 Even were we bound by the rules of evidence, we would not be bound to draw such an inference. We decline to do so in this case. 75 The contest between the parties was limited in relation to the evidence that Dr Raven's wife and children could reasonably be expected to give. 76 The complainant's evidence was that there was only one occasion when she went on an outing with Dr Raven's family, including his wife: when they went to the movies and the complainant then stayed overnight at Dr Raven's home. It is not alleged that any sexual activity occurred on that occasion. Dr Raven's evidence was that there were two such outings, and his wife was present at one of those, while his children were present at both. The evidence differs in that Dr Raven says his wife was present during an outing that involved dinner, rather than a movie, after which the complainant stayed at his home. He says that a female friend of his, who was Dutch, was present at the occasion when they went to the movies, rather than his wife. He says he has lost touch with this friend who returned to her home country. We are not asked to draw any inference from the failure to call this person as a witness. 77 It appears to us that even had Dr Raven's wife been called to give evidence, it is unlikely that, after four decades, she would have anything more than a vague recollection of any occasion on which the complainant was taken out by the family. 78 As to Dr Raven's children, on his evidence, the eldest was born in 1969 and the younger child in 1971. Accordingly, they would have been about 13 or 14 and 11 or 12 respectively in 1982 and 1983, and there would be limited prospects of either of them having any particular memory of outings with the complainant. Consciousness of guilt 79 The Board also asked us to find that Dr Raven has told lies and that, in addition to undermining his credit generally, we should conclude that he lied out of a 'consciousness of guilt'. In other words, the Board relies on the alleged lies as not only undermining Dr Raven's credibility, but as circumstantial evidence corroborating the 46 Cross on Evidence 13th Edition, JD Heydon at 1215, page 42. -- 23 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 24 complainant's evidence that Dr Raven did engage in the sexual activity that the complainant alleges occurred. 80 The fact a witness has lied cannot prove the opposite of the lie. However, the fact that a witness has lied may indicate a consciousness on their part that the truth in respect of that matter would not have assisted their case, which may then allow an inference to be drawn about a specific fact, and may corroborate other evidence.47 81 In its written submissions, the lies the Board relied on in this way were said to be: (a) lies attacking the complainant's character made in the course of Dr Raven's written correspondence to Ahpra and the Tribunal, some of which Dr Raven said were based on things that the complainant had told him; and (b) lies about when the outings Dr Raven admits took place actually occurred and the number of those outings. 82 However, in the Board's oral closing submissions, the Board indicated that it relied on the lies referred to in [81(b)] above only as going to Dr Raven's credit.48 83 In order to prove the lie referred to in [81(a)] above, the Board relies on the complainant's denial not only that she had said what Dr Raven alleged she had told him, but also her evidence, which was not responsive to the question she was asked, that what she was alleged to have told Dr Raven had never happened. 84 Under the rules of evidence, in order for a lie to be used as circumstantial evidence from which it might be inferred that alleged conduct took place, the lie must be proved from evidence other than the witness whose evidence is sought to be corroborated. To do otherwise would be to allow a witness, in effect, to corroborate their own evidence.49 85 Although we are not bound by the rules of evidence, our assessment of the credibility of the complainant's evidence about the sexual activity she alleges occurred is crucial to our determination of 47 Tobin v Eziekiel [2012] NSWCA 285, (2012) NSWLR 757 at [60] Meagher JA (Basten and Campbell JJA agreeing). 48 ts 278, 1 December 2025. 49 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 at (198) (Brennan J). -- 24 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 25 whether Dr Raven behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct. Our assessment of the credibility of her evidence about what did or did not occur on an unrelated occasion, is not. In each case, the only evidence we have is the competing evidence of the complainant and Dr Raven. We can see no utility in our engaging in fact finding in relation to what is a side issue that also requires us to be satisfied of the complainant's credibility, rather than focus on her credibility in relation to the central allegations in this matter. 86 In any event, we consider that inquiry would serve no purpose. Even if Dr Raven were proved to have lied about the complainant's character when she made a complaint about him nearly 40 years after the alleged events, we do not consider that it could provide any corroboration of the complainant's account of the alleged events. The Board's counsel submitted that what Dr Raven said about the complainant were not the sort of lies that an innocent man defending his innocence might tell. We do not accept that. The allegations involved conduct that seems improbable, and raising those allegations does Dr Raven no credit, if indeed he lied in order to attack the complainant's character. However, in our view, it is at least equally possible, if not more likely, that a person might lie to attack the character of someone who is making a false claim against them, as someone who is telling the truth. An innocent person may lie out of fear of the consequences of an unjust finding, rather than from a consciousness of guilt. 87 We also consider that to draw the inference sought would be unfair to Dr Raven in all the circumstances. These matters were only before us because the Board's counsel cross-examined Dr Raven about what he had said in the correspondence to the Board and the Tribunal and tendered that correspondence.50 Whilst there were other reasons to tender the correspondence, the portions of which the Board now complains might have been redacted. Those earlier assertions were not relied on by Dr Raven's counsel to undermine the complainant's credibility. The extent of the cross-examination by Dr Raven's counsel on that matter was to ask the complainant if she had told Dr Raven something, not whether what she had allegedly said was true.51 88 For the same reasons, we are not prepared to accept the submission that the alleged lies referred to in [81(a)] above undermine Dr Raven's credibility generally. 50 Exhibit 15, Exhibit 16, Exhibit 17, ts 203, 206 and 207, 24 November 2025. 51 ts 143, 18 November 2025. -- 25 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 26 89 With respect to the lies said to have been told about the number of outings and the period of time over which these took place, this issue is considered below, in our consideration of Dr Raven's evidence. Evidence of criminal convictions and use of the title 'Dr' 90 The Board's counsel submitted that Dr Raven's credibility was undermined by the fact that he had criminal convictions for dishonesty, 29 years ago, and that he denied the convictions were the result of his dishonesty in his evidence. The Board's counsel also submitted that we should draw conclusions that Dr Raven was not a credible witness because he lied about using the title 'Dr'. 91 Dr Raven admitted that he had a conviction for stealing in 1997. He also did not dispute that, at that time, he was also convicted of another offence of dishonesty, although he was not sure that the proposition put to him, that the charge was 'attempted fraud', was quite right. He said that both convictions concerned his sale of a leased painting. 92 We accept the Board's submission that Dr Raven appeared to play down the seriousness of the offending, by saying he had been 'careless'. We have limited information about the charges against Dr Raven or the facts on which the charges were based. However, we consider that it is reasonable to infer from the information we have, that he was not convicted of two charges of dishonesty as the result of 'carelessness'. 93 We do not, however, consider that the fact that Dr Raven attempted to downplay the seriousness of offences of which he was convicted nearly 30 years ago has much relevance to our assessment of the credibility of his evidence in this matter. His reaction may have been the natural reaction of someone confronted by criminal conduct from many years ago. Nor is there any evidence of any further convictions for dishonesty in the intervening decades. 94 With respect to his use of the title 'Dr', there is evidence that it may not entirely be correct to say that Dr Raven has not used the title since he retired, as he said in cross-examination. This questioning was in the context of his counsel saying in opening that Dr Raven no longer used the title. When it was put to him that this was not true, Dr Raven conceded that he might use the title to get a better table at a restaurant. There was, however, no evidence to support the proposition that was then put to him that he had used the title 'many times' when writing to the Tribunal, including in 2024, although he did use the title in a letter -- 26 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 27 to the Tribunal dated 10 November 2023.52 When that proposition was put, Dr Raven said 'I can't tell you. I didn't regard it as a sin to call myself doctor'. The Board's counsel confirmed that it was not improper for him to do so. 95 We do not consider that it is possible to find that Dr Raven was deliberately lying about not having used the title 'Dr' since his retirement, from his admissions that he had, on occasion, used that title. It may be that he generally does not use the title. In any event, we do not consider this is significant in our assessing Dr Raven's credibility. Contested evidence 96 We now turn to consider the contested evidence, starting with Dr Raven's evidence in response to the complainant's allegations, followed by the complainant's evidence of the particular sexual activity alleged to have taken place and our findings in relation to those allegations. Dr Raven's evidence 97 Dr Raven admitted that he had met the complainant while he was treating her mother. Dr Raven initially said that he remembered very little about the complainant's mother. He said he remembered her surname, that she was female, the town she lived in and that she had chronic myeloid leukaemia.53 He knew the dates she had been admitted to hospital because he had contacted Medical Records at the Hospital, and they had provided him with a list of admission dates. 98 Despite his evidence that he remembered very little about the complainant's mother, Dr Raven said later in his evidence that he remembered the mother well, which he volunteered was unusual because he had treated over 150,000 patients. 99 Dr Raven said that the complainant's mother was 'moderately well' when she was admitted on 9 October 1982 and had been working normally. He said that, at that time, the illness she suffered from was usually fatal, and had an expected survival of about a year, but that it did not initially make people very unwell.54 He said that it was unusual for a patient to be admitted to hospital at that stage, but that the mother was worried about money and did not want to stay in hotels, so he 52 Exhibit 18. 53 ts 166 to 167, 18 November 2025. 54 ts 167, 18 November 2025. -- 27 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 28 arranged for her to be admitted. However, Dr Raven said that, towards the end, there was no doubt that the mother should be in hospital.55 100 Dr Raven said that his intention was to treat the mother 'at a distance' as she lived in a rural town. He said that the referring doctor was in that town. 101 With respect to the complainant's evidence that she first met Dr Raven in his office in the Hospital, Dr Raven said that he did not meet the mother's family during her admissions to the Hospital, other than seeing one of her sons once, at a distance.56 He said that he never met patients' families in the office at the Hospital as it was small and he shared it with a secretary. 102 Dr Raven said that he did not discuss the complainant's mother's children with the complainant's mother on her later admissions. He said that he probably did discuss her family on the first admission, when she was not unwell. Dr Raven said that he never met the mother's husband, although he knew the husband was a doctor. He said, in effect, that he gave doctors' families special treatment.57 He said that he knew the mother had children and was worried about money and how she would be able to afford their education.58 Dr Raven said that he and the complainant's mother were both worried about educating their children.59 103 The complainant's evidence was that her father was at the hospital during her mother's last admission and it would seem to accord with the probabilities that he would attend the Hospital during his wife's last days. Given that, we consider that it is unlikely that Dr Raven did not meet him, and that his memory about this is unreliable. However, nothing appears to turn on this. 104 Dr Raven said that he did not have any contact with the complainant's mother between her first admission in October 1982 and her second admission in May 1983. He said that the first sign that the complainant's mother was going to die was in May 1983, meaning that it was obvious that she was not going to get more than a year at that time.60 55 ts 167, 18 November 2025. 56 ts 168, 18 November 2025. 57 ts 168, 18 November 2025. 58 ts 168, 18 November 2025. 59 ts 169, 18 November 2025. 60 ts 169, 176, 18 November 2025. -- 28 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 29 105 Dr Raven said that, during her last admission before she died, the complainant's mother asked him to take the complainant out on some outings.61 Dr Raven said: On the last admission, which was two days only, the 14th she - she was about to die, and she wanted her daughter given some outings … she told me she would ring the school to get permission, and I said I would - I would give her some outings with my children.62 106 Dr Raven said that he agreed because the mother was a doctor's wife and very nice. He said it is the only time in his life that he actually ever took anybody's offspring on outings.63 107 Dr Raven agreed that he had previously told Aphra that the outings had occurred between February and July 1983, which was inconsistent with his recollection that the request had occurred in October 1983. When asked if there was anything that had refreshed his memory, Dr Raven said: Well, I knew I had been to Spain before I met [the complainant], and I found, amongst all my old passports, the relevant passports. I also had a strong memory that [the complainant's mother's] request was on her deathbed, sent [sic] the day before she died, which made much more sense, and other things. My wife could only remember going once, our Dutch friend I knew, once. And some of the other outings I am supposed to have been on were just fabrications. 108 The passport Dr Raven was referring to evidenced that he had been overseas from 3 to 17 September 1983.64 As we have said, the Hospital records indicate that the complainant's mother died on 15 October 1983. Her only admission to the Hospital after 17 September 1983 was on 14 October 1983, the day before she died. 109 Dr Raven said that the first time he met the complainant was in November 1983. Later he said that 'it would have been in November' before he first called the School.65 Dr Raven said that he had allowed time for the complainant's exams and her mother's funeral to be finished. Dr Raven said that the outings all occurred in a period of about a month.66 He said he did not remember the call to the School 61 ts 170, 18 November 2025. 62 ts 170, 18 November 2025. 63 ts 170, 18 November 2025. 64 Exhibit 13. 65 ts 170, 18 November 2025. 66 ts 221, 24 November 2025. -- 29 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 30 but said that the School 'was not going to hand over anybody without it being done properly'.67 110 Dr Raven said that he took the complainant out to a restaurant and the movies in town, meaning Perth City, with his two children, who were aged 11 and 13 at the time, and a female friend who was Dutch.68 He said that he assumed that it was an Italian restaurant because his family mostly went to Italian restaurants.69 He said the restaurant would have been in town because they went to the pictures in town.70 Dr Raven also said that they went to dinner at a fast-food restaurant called 'Fast Eddy's' with his children and his wife.71 111 Dr Raven said that at the end of the second of these outings, he drove the complainant, with his family, to a university college, as the complainant was to spend the night there with one of her brothers. Dr Raven said that he left his family in the car whilst he walked the complainant 'up the hill' to her brother's room. He said that the brother was not there, so Dr Raven looked for a night porter and asked about a guest room and was told they did not exist. Dr Raven said they walked back down the hill again and got back in the car and took the complainant to his home, in a nearby suburb. He said that he took the complainant to his home rather than her boarding house because the complainant wanted to go to the college the next day and it seemed easier. Dr Raven said that his wife looked after the complainant, and he went to bed because he worked on Saturdays. Dr Raven said that he did not see the complainant the next morning because he went to work and had to be at work by 8.30 am.72 112 Dr Raven said that his outings with his family always occurred on a Friday evening, and never on the weekends, because he worked. He said that he worked 8.30 am to 5.30 pm on weekdays, 8.30 am to about midday on Saturdays, and 10 am to late evening on Sundays.73 He said outings with his family were not every week but happened about every fortnight.74 67 ts 170, 18 November 2025. 68 ts 171 to 172, 18 November 2025. 69 ts 171 and 229, 18 November 2025 and 24 November 2025. 70 ts 171, 18 November 2025. 71 ts 171, 172 and 225, 18 November 2025 and 24 November 2025. 72 ts 173, 18 November 2025. 73 ts 170 to 171, 18 November 2025. 74 ts 172, 174, 18 November 2025. -- 30 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 31 113 Dr Raven initially estimated that the two outings with his children were 'maybe a fortnight' apart, later saying that they were at a fortnight interval.75 114 Dr Raven said that on one occasion he took the complainant to a coffee shop near the School on a weekday after school.76 He said that he also saw the complainant in her room at the boarding house when she was unwell, with the door open.77 115 Dr Raven said that the last occasion he saw the complainant was for 10 minutes before her last school assembly to say goodbye. He said that he was sitting in his car outside the entrance to the assembly hall, but he did not remember if the complainant was in the car as well.78 116 In cross-examination, Dr Raven accepted that the Year 12 exams were for a two-week period from 14 November 1983.79 However, he said 'exams to me are irrelevant'.80 He said: Well, I've admitted today that I probably was more interested in when the mother was buried or cremated than the school. I educated two children and I used to pay money in November when nothing happened. So I probably assumed that everything was over and done in October.81 117 This effect of this evidence appeared to be that Dr Raven was suggesting that, despite his earlier evidence, he may not have delayed until after the complainant's exams were finished to arrange the outings, as he had said, but rather only waited until after the funeral. 118 In relation to the complainant's other allegations, in addition to denying any sexual misconduct, Dr Raven denied he had taken the complainant to an Italian restaurant on her own or that he had given the complainant alcohol at any time,82 that he had ever taken the complainant to the zoo, or that he had ever taken her to a hotel for breakfast. 119 We do not accept Dr Raven's evidence that the outings commenced only after the complainant's mother's death on 75 ts 173, 175, 18 November 2025. 76 ts 174, 18 November 2025. 77 ts 174, 18 November 2025. 78 ts 174 to 175, 18 November 2025. 79 ts 217, 24 November 2025. 80 ts 218, 24 November 2025. 81 ts 234, 24 November 2025. 82 ts 175, 18 November 2025. -- 31 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 32 15 October 1983, and that she contacted the School when she was on her deathbed on 14 October 1983. 120 The complainant said that her mother's funeral took place a number of weeks after her death.83 She said that her final year exams began a month after her mother's death and lasted approximately two weeks.84 The complainant said that she attended a final school assembly two or three weeks, at most, after the exams, and returned home for Christmas.85 The complainant said that she then went travelling in the Eastern States, before starting university in another State.86 This evidence was unchallenged and we accept it. On the basis of our finding at [17] that the exam period began on 14 November 1983, the complainant would not have finished her exams until 28 November 1983 at the earliest. 121 Accordingly, the opportunity for Dr Raven to take the complainant on any outings after her exams was during only three weeks, at most, after 28 November 1983 and before the school assembly. Dr Raven's evidence was that there were two outings with his family, a visit to a coffee shop and two further meetings with the complainant that were not 'outings'. Given that the two outings Dr Raven recalls occurring with his children were at least a fortnight apart, and the last occasion was on the day of the school assembly, it is improbable all five occasions that Dr Raven says he can recall seeing the complainant occurred within that three-week period. We consider that Dr Raven changed his evidence, to the effect referred to in [117], because he recognised the improbability of that occurring. 122 Even if Dr Raven had waited only until after the funeral, which on the complainant's evidence was a few weeks after her mother's death, if his other evidence is to be accepted, that would mean the first outing was a week before the complainant's exams began and the second outing in the middle of the exam period. 123 There is no dispute that the mother was a person who cared a great deal about her children's education. The complainant said that her mother wanted one of her children to study medicine, and that the complainant had wanted to achieve that for her mother. On her evidence she was a conscientious and successful student. We accept 83 ts 42, 17 November 2025. 84 ts 42, 17 November 2025. 85 ts 43, 17 November 2025. 86 ts 43, 17 November 2025. -- 32 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 33 this evidence, which was unchallenged and was consistent with Dr Raven's evidence about his memory of the complainant's mother. In light of this, it is improbable that the complainant's mother would have thought about arranging outings for the complainant during exams, even if she was capable of doing so on 14 October 1983. 124 In any event, we also consider that it is improbable that, the day before she died, while gravely ill, the complainant's mother told Dr Raven that she would telephone the School to give permission for the complainant to leave the School to attend outings with Dr Raven, or that the School would have accepted the permission of a parent who had died before an outing took place. 125 In addition, Dr Raven's evidence that the outings occurred over the course of a month after the complainant's mother's death, and her funeral, and the complainant's exams is inconsistent with previous statements he has made. Those previous statements are consistent in saying that the outings occurred over the course of a number of months, although not as to whether they occurred before the complainant's mother's death. 126 The first occasion on which Dr Raven responded to the complainant's allegations was in a letter to the complainant dated 14 July 2021 (July 2021 letter).87 The July 2021 letter was sent after Dr Raven had been served with a writ, by which the complainant commenced the civil proceedings. As we have said, this was when Dr Raven first became aware of the complainant's allegation of the sexual activity. In the July 2021 letter, Dr Raven said that: When your mum was sick, no one could criticize you for being upset. Your Mum knew this and this is why she asked that you be given some outings. The school did everything it had to. It checked my identity and it checked with your Mum. At the age of 84 my memory of past outings has gone but my wife said that as a family, we took you to Fast Eddy's and to the Pictures. Also, one night when you could not obtain a room at your brother's college, we took you home. The next morning my wife had to take you somewhere because I had already gone to work. 127 The statement that the complainant's mother asked him to take the complainant on outings because the complainant was upset her mother was sick is consistent with the outings taking place while the complainant's mother was still alive. In addition, Dr Raven agreed that 87 Exhibit 15. -- 33 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 34 he had said in a letter to the Tribunal on 29 January 2024 that he saw the complainant's mother on many occasions between July and October 1983 and she was grateful to him for giving the complainant outings.88 128 In his original response to Ahpra on 21 March 2022 (March 2022 email), Dr Raven said that the dates he, and his family, had contact with the complainant were between February 1984 and late November, early December 1984, and then again after July 1985 when the complainant was in Perth working as a barmaid.89 129 In a further email to Ahpra dated 17 October 2022 (October 2022 email), Dr Raven said that the complainant's mother's request to give the complainant outings was a 'deathbed' request and that because of Christmas and the summer holidays, the complainant was not seen by his family and himself until February 1984, which was the first time that he met the complainant. He said that he saw the complainant on three occasions by himself between July and November or December 1984. He said that on one of these occasions the complainant was 'chaperoned' and the last was for 10 minutes, in the evening prior to her last school assembly 'to say goodbye'. He said that when she returned to Perth in 1985, the complainant contacted him, and that he had no further contact with her between 1985 and 2021.90 130 In a letter dated 10 November 2023 (November 2023 letter), addressed to the associate to the then President of the Tribunal, Dr Raven said that, at the request of the complainant's mother, the complainant was given some outings with Dr Raven's family and himself from February to July 1983 and on one occasion she stayed overnight at home with his family.91 He said that: With regard to the events of 40 years ago I have just partial memory. I can remember sitting in a cinema next to our Dutch friend who took the place of my wife that night but cannot remember the name of the film or the cinema. The night [the complainant] stayed at our house I remember we went to Fast Eddy's restaurant but have no memory of the meal or the place. Afterwards, however, she wanted to stay in her brother's room with him, I can remember leaving the family in the car 88 ts 271, 1 December 2025. 89 Exhibit 16. 90 Exhibit 17. 91 Exhibit 18. -- 34 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 35 park at the brother's college and walking up a long very dark hill only to find that he was out and there was no night porter.92 131 Dr Raven said in the November 2023 letter that, in his responses to Ahpra, he had mistaken 1984 for 1983.93 Dr Raven said in his evidence that he had realised this was a mistake when he was told by a lawyer acting for the School in the civil proceedings, that the complainant's last year at the School was 1983.94 Dr Raven said that he had then checked the School's magazine at the State Library, to satisfy himself that the complainant had finished school in 1983. Accordingly, on his evidence, at the time he wrote the March 2022 email and the October 2022 email, he had believed that the complainant was in Year 12 in 1984. 132 The effect of this evidence was that Dr Raven accepted, as was obvious, that he could not have taken the complainant on outings from the School in 1984 as she had ceased to be a student at the School in 1983. 133 In his original response to allegations, filed on 11 November 2024, it was said that the outings had stopped between July 1983 to November 1983 because his children had lost interest in them and the complainant was busy studying for her exams. Dr Raven accepted in his evidence that he had probably read that response before it was filed. 134 Dr Raven said, in effect, that he had made an error about when he had taken the complainant on outings because of the passage of time and faulty memory.95 Dr Raven gave evidence about the adverse effects of time and various ailments, including a brain injury acquired while playing sport, that affected his memory. Ultimately, he said he had the memory of an 88-year-old, and the brain injury didn't help.96 135 Dr Raven's evidence that his trip to Spain means that he could not have taken the complainant on an outing before 15 October 1983, does not accord with the dates of that trip. Dr Raven returned from Spain a month before the complainant's mother died. Although her next admission after Dr Raven returned from Spain was on 14 October 1983, she had been admitted from 12 August until 11 September 1983, eight days after Dr Raven left for Spain. Accordingly, even if 92 Exhibit 18. 93 Exhibit 18. 94 ts 207, 210, 214, 24 November 2025. 95 ts 214, 24 November 2025. 96 ts 164, 18 November 2025. -- 35 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 36 Dr Raven has a recollection that the outings did not begin until after he had been in Spain in 1983, it does not necessarily follow that the outings did not begin until after the 15 October. That evidence is at least equally consistent with his having taken the complainant on outings upon his return on 17 September 1983. 136 We accept that Dr Raven's memory is likely to be affected by his advanced age, as well as the fact that these events are alleged to have occurred a very long time ago. In the course of his evidence, it was often difficult to identify what Dr Raven was saying that he remembered himself or remembered after having his memory refreshed by other information, including from his wife, or what he did not remember but assumed occurred, either because it was his usual practice, or something he had been told, or because it was consistent with other evidence. 137 The memory issues that we have accepted as a result of his age, and the passage of time since the alleged events and the effect that must have on Dr Raven's ability to identify the occasions that the outings occurred means that it would be entirely understandable if Dr Raven did not now positively recall the period of time over which the outings occurred or when they began. However, he did insist on having a positive memory of the outings occurring after the complainant's mother's death. 138 Given Dr Raven's prior inconsistent statements, and the improbability of his evidence, as we have discussed, it is difficult to characterise his evidence that the outings took place over a course of a month after 15 October 1983 as part of a process of reconstruction, as Dr Raven's counsel submitted, based on a recollection that the complainant's mother was on her deathbed when she asked him to take the complainant on outings. Accordingly, we are satisfied, and we find, that Dr Raven was untruthful in his assertion that he had an actual memory of the outings beginning after 15 October 1983. 139 As we have already noted, we understood that the Board's position was that this lie was relevant only to our assessment of the credibility of Dr Raven's evidence generally. We accept that submission. 140 We have also said that we understood that, ultimately, the Board did not submit that we should find that this lie arose from a consciousness of guilt. However, to the extent that we are incorrect in that understanding, we do not consider that this lie could amount to -- 36 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 37 circumstantial evidence that the sexual activity that Dr Raven has consistently, and vehemently denied, occurred. The purpose of this evidence was not apparent, other than to limit the period over which Dr Raven might have the opportunity to engage in sexual activity with the complainant. This lie does not, however, exclude the opportunity for that sexual activity to have occurred at all. In addition, as has been said, people may lie because of the fear of the consequence of an unjust finding against them. 141 Nor do we consider that this finding requires us to dismiss all of Dr Raven's evidence as we shall discuss. 142 We consider that it is likely that there were more outings than Dr Raven said he recalled in his evidence, although, as discussed later, we are also of the view that there were unlikely to be as many as the complainant estimated. 143 The Board's submission that the evidence suggests a close personal relationship between Dr Raven and the complainant has some force. It is supported by the undisputed fact that they did meet in Perth after the complainant's first year at University and spend time together socially. In addition, Dr Raven clearly has memories of the complainant and her family, and of conversations with her, that suggest a degree of familiarity that is at odds with the limited interaction that he says he had with her. This supports the complainant's evidence that they saw each other more frequently than Dr Raven now admits. 144 Dr Raven's amended response to the Board's application, filed on 11 November 2024, said that he had taken the complainant out on four to six outings with his wife, or his Dutch friend, and his children between February and July 1983, and had three other contacts with her in mid- November to early December 1983, including one visit to a coffee shop. That is, he has previously admitted to two to four more outings than he currently admits to, albeit that these are all said to have been with his family. 145 When Dr Raven was asked about this, he did not give a satisfactory answer. He initially said that his chronology was wrong, referring to his belief that the complainant had finished school in 1984 rather than 1983. He then appeared to blame the passage of time and his faulty memory. 146 However, whilst Dr Raven has been inconsistent about the total number of occasions that he said he had taken the complainant on -- 37 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 38 outings, he has been consistent in his description of the specific outings he says that he recalls namely that they went to the movies with his friend and children, that there was an occasion where he took the complainant to dinner with wife and children, after which she stayed at his home because an arrangement to stay with her brother fell through, and that there was an occasion where he took her to a coffee shop on her own. He has also been consistent in saying that there were two additional contacts with the complainant, which could not be described as outings: one chaperoned at her boarding house and one short meeting before her last assembly to say goodbye. 147 Although the complainant did not recall these last two occasions, we are prepared to accept that evidence. They were admissions against Dr Raven's apparent interest, of meetings in somewhat unusual circumstances, which again suggest a degree of familiarity at odds with the limited interaction that Dr Raven says occurred. It is difficult to see any reason for Dr Raven lying about this. 148 With respect to the outings that Dr Raven referred to there were significant similarities between Dr Raven's evidence and the complainant's evidence. She also said that they had gone to a coffee shop, although on more than one occasion. With respect to the visit to the movies, Dr Raven was adamant that the woman who came with them was not his wife but his friend. He said they ate first at a restaurant, which he thought was Italian because they usually either went to Italian restaurants or fast food restaurants.97 He also said that this was a separate occasion from the occasion when he and his wife took the complainant out after which she was taken to Dr Raven's home to spend the night after having failed to find her brother at his university college. Dr Raven appeared to have a genuine memory of walking up to the college at night. In any event, the details he gives of this occasion are similar to those given by the complainant. In our view, it is possible that the complainant is conflating two separate occasions into one. 149 Given his consistency in identifying particular outings, and the similarity of his memory to some of the complainant's evidence, as we have said, and the fact that he was trying to recall events from four decades ago, we are not positively satisfied that Dr Raven was lying in his evidence about the number of outings with the complainant that he says that he remembers. That is not to say that we consider that 97 ts 171, 18 November 2025. -- 38 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 39 his evidence is reliable. We will consider this issue further when we come to the complainant's evidence. 150 We also consider that, despite the number of patients he had seen over the years, it is plausible Dr Raven does have a genuine memory of the complainant's mother, as he says. Again, what he says he does remember is largely consistent with the complainant's evidence, particularly her evidence about her mother's interest in her children's education and the number of children at boarding school. As Dr Raven said, he had not taken out the children of any other patients, so this was an unusual circumstance for him. Accordingly, we accept that evidence. 151 Finally, we consider that it is likely that Dr Raven did have a discussion with the complainant's mother about taking the complainant on outings with his family, as he said, and make that finding. We have three reasons for this. 152 First, the complainant said that it would have been the usual practise for someone to have given permission to the School for the outings.98 We infer that the School would have wanted permission to be granted by a parent or guardian. On the complainant's evidence, her mother was more involved in her children's upbringing than her father. Given that, we consider that it is more likely that she, rather that the complainant's father, gave permission to the School, although we do not accept that occurred as late as 14 October 1983.99 153 Second, the complainant said that the first meeting with Dr Raven came about because, when she was visiting her mother on one of the occasions when her mother was down for treatment, her mother told her that Dr Raven wanted to speak to her.100 The complainant said that she understood that this was to speak about her mother's condition, although she said that she did not recall her mother telling her why Dr Raven wanted to see her.101 However, the complainant said that it was during this conversation that there was 'a suggestion or offer' that Dr Raven would collect her from school from time to time. She accepted that someone must have told Dr Raven she was at the 98 ts 94, 18 November 2025. 99 ts 36, 17 November 2025. 100 ts 35, 17 November 2025. 101 ts 66, 17 November 2025. -- 39 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 40 School.102 In the circumstances, it is probable that this was the complainant's mother, as Dr Raven said. 154 Third, the complainant said that, while she did not recall speaking about the outings with her mother, she 'suspected' that the fact that Dr Raven would pick her up from school from time to time 'may have been something that she might have been aware of'.103 The effect of this evidence was that the complainant believed her mother knew Dr Raven was taking her out. 155 Nor does it seem improbable, as the Board submitted, that the complainant's mother would have arranged for Dr Raven to take out her daughter but not also her two sons who were at another boarding school. The complainant was her mother's only daughter and did not have a sibling at the School, whilst her brothers were at the same school. The complainant was also in her final school year. It is conceivable that the complainant's mother may have been more concerned that the complainant would be upset about her illness, than her sons. It is also easier to accommodate one extra child into a family's outings, rather than three. 156 We also consider that it is probable that the complainant's first meeting occurred at Dr Raven's office at the Hospital after her mother sent her to see him, as the complainant said. Dr Raven denied that was possible, because he did not speak directly to patient's families, who were managed by more junior doctors, and because his office at the Hospital was very small and he shared it with a secretary. However, he also said that it was unusual for him to take a patient's child on outings. 157 However, having accepted that the complainant's mother spoke to Dr Raven about his taking the complainant out, it would be logical for the complainant's mother to have arranged for the complainant to meet Dr Raven before those outings began, if for no other reason than so that she could recognise him. It also accords with the probabilities for such a meeting to occur at the Hospital, where the complainant's mother was being treated and where Dr Raven worked. Finally, there was the opportunity for this to occur, given that the complainant's unchallenged evidence that she regularly visited her mother while she was in Hospital. 102 ts 66, 17 November 2025. 103 ts 44, 17 November 2025. -- 40 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 41 158 We also accept that it is likely that Dr Raven spoke to her about collecting her from the School from time to time, as she said, although we consider that it was likely that this was with her mother's knowledge.104 The complainant's evidence of sexual activity 159 The complainant said that the next time she saw Dr Raven was the first occasion he collected her from the School. Her recollection was that it was weeks after she met him in the office. The complainant said that, on the first occasions, he took her to coffee shops 'maybe for a light meal' after school in the early evening. These outings were midweek, and it was still light. She would be back at the boarding house at the School for dinner.105 160 The complainant said that, on one occasion, Dr Raven took her to a meal at an Italian restaurant.106 She said that she could not recall how long this was after she first met Dr Raven.107 However, the complainant said that it was early in the number of times she met him,108 that she had met him on a number of occasions before this occasion, and that it could have been the third occasion, but she was not sure.109 Ultimately, as we understood it, the effect of the complainant's evidence was that she was not sure whether this occasion was in 1982 or 1983 and that it could have been after the 1982 Christmas school holidays.110 161 The complainant said that at the Italian restaurant, Dr Raven ordered wine for them both, and they both drank the wine.111 The complainant said that she did not drink at that time. She said that she does not recall how much she drank but that she was more giggly than usual and probably a little tipsy.112 162 The complainant said that they left the restaurant in Dr Raven's car.113 She said that she could not recall the make, model or colour of the car, but recalls it was a sedan.114 104 ts 66, 17 November 2025. 105 ts 36 to 37, 17 November 2025. 106 ts 37, 17 November 2025. 107 ts 64 to 65, 17 November 2025. 108 ts 64 to 65, 17 November 2025. 109 ts 64 to 65, 17 November 2025. 110 ts 64 to 65 and 70, 17 November 2025. 111 ts 37, 17 November 2025. 112 ts 37, 17 November 2025. 113 ts 37, 17 November 2025. -- 41 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 42 163 The complainant said that she remembers being a bit surprised when they drove past the road that was the turn off to the School. She said that they drove to a park near the School and parked, and that it was dark.115 The complainant said: I recall Dr Raven using the lever to recline the seat - the passenger seat that I was in. I recall that Dr Raven was - kissed me and touched my breasts and touched my vagina and placed his fingers inside my vagina … It was more than one. I believe it was two [fingers]. 164 The complainant said that Dr Raven kissed her on the mouth, opened mouthed and inserting his tongue into her mouth. She could not recall whether Dr Raven touched her breasts over or under her clothes, just that he touched them. The complainant said that Dr Raven touched her vagina inside her clothing. She does not recall how long this continued saying only that it was not a short, or fleeting, time.116 The complainant said that she did not recall them saying anything to each other. Afterwards they returned to the School. When asked how she felt when the touching and kissing occurred the complainant said, 'Shocked. I think stunned. I think on a level there was some excitement. But mainly shocked and stunned'.117 165 The complainant said that the same thing would occur on other outings. She said that, typically, an outing involved picking her up from school and going to the same park.118 However, the complainant did not give evidence of any other specific occasion where sexual activity occurred in Dr Raven's car at the park. 166 The only other specific sexual act the complainant said that she could recall was during an outing to the zoo on a weekend119 and during the day, but she could not recall when.120 167 The complainant said: [H]e touched my arm and my bare back because I had a top that was exposed at the back and my breast at that time at the zoo.121 114 ts 38, 17 November 2025. 115 ts 38, 17 November 2025. 116 ts 38 and 39, 17 November 2025. 117 ts 39, 17 November 2025. 118 ts 39, 17 November 2025. 119 ts 39, 17 November 2025. 120 ts 73 to 74, 17 November 2025. 121 ts 39, 17 November 2025. -- 42 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 43 168 We understood the complainant to be saying the top was exposed at the back, not that it exposed her breast, and that the reference to her breast was intended to be a reference to Dr Raven touching her breast, as well as her arm and back. 169 The complainant later said: … I wore a skirt and I wore a top. It's like an apricot colour. And it had a sort of a - across the back a large band, but it was in a position where I couldn't wear a bra. And then, sort of the rest of my back was exposed, and it was sleeveless.122 170 In cross-examination the complainant said: I was standing looking at something, an animal or something in the zoo. I know that he seemed very interested in the fact that my top was quite exposed at the back and that I wasn't wearing a bra because of the nature of the back. And it was a sort of slightly cropped top, and he touched my breast. I think it was actually over the fabric, not under the fabric, but over the fabric.123 171 The complainant said that she recalled an occasion when she went to see a film with Dr Raven, his wife and his daughter.124 She said that this was the only occasion that she met Dr Raven's wife and daughter and that his son was not there. 172 The complainant said that Dr Raven's daughter was in primary school and might have been 10 at the time. However, Dr Raven's evidence was that his daughter was born in 1969. Accordingly, she turned 13 in 1982 and 14 in 1983. The complainant said that the occasion that she went to the movies with Dr Raven and his wife and daughter was after the sexual activity with Dr Raven had begun.125 On that evidence, this would have been in 1983, when Dr Raven's daughter was 14. However, in either case, she would not have been in primary school. 173 The complainant said that this outing occurred on a weekend, she believed a Saturday night, and she believed that she was signed out to go to stay in her brother's room at the university college. She said that she cannot recall why, but she ended up staying in Dr Raven's home, and his wife and daughter were there. The complainant said that she had a memory that, in the morning before she was taken back to school, 122 ts 41, 17 November 2025. 123 ts 74, 17 November 2025. 124 ts 39, 17 November 2025. 125 ts 140, 18 November 2025. -- 43 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 44 she was standing in the house looking at butterflies with pins in them in a frame. She said Dr Raven touched her arm 'I think' and her back. The complainant said that was the only physical contact she can recall on that occasion. When asked how she got back to the School, she said 'I was driven, I believe, by Dr Raven. I think it was by Dr Raven. Yes.'126 In cross-examination, the Complainant said she believed Dr Raven drove her, but that it may have been a taxi. She said that it certainly wasn't Dr Raven's wife who drove her.127 174 As we have said, we consider that the complainant may have conflated this occasion with an occasion when Dr Raven took her to the movies with his children and a female friend. 175 The complainant said she recalled one other outing where Dr Raven took her to a buffet breakfast in one of the hotels in the City and she had smoked salmon, which she had not had before.128 She said there was no-one else present on this occasion.129 In cross-examination, the complainant said that this outing was on a weekend and that she cannot recall if any sexual activity occurred after that outing.130 176 When asked how many times after outings with Dr Raven sexual activity occurred before she was taken back to the School, the complainant said, 'My recollection, apart from the movie theatre, and I don't recall the zoo, was on every occasion'.131 In this evidence, the complainant was omitting the occasion of the buffet breakfast, where she said that she could not recall whether any sexual activity occurred. In cross-examination, the complainant said that her memory was that the sexual abuse was always at the park, and that what happened at the park was always the same.132 177 The complainant said that the outings came to an end after her mother passed away.133 178 The complainant said that she returned to Perth during the Christmas holidays at the end of her first year at university. She said that she met Dr Raven on two occasions when she was in Perth.134 126 ts 40, 17 November 2025. 127 ts 72, 17 November 2025. 128 ts 40 to 41, 17 November 2025. 129 ts 40 to 41, 17 November 2025. 130 ts 73, 17 November 2025. 131 ts 39, 17 November 2025. 132 ts 65, 17 November 2025. 133 ts 39, 17 November 2025. -- 44 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 45 179 The complainant said she could not recall how the first meeting was arranged but that she thought she contacted Dr Raven.135 She could not recall what they did on the first occasion, although she thought they went to dinner or a bar in the evening. The complainant said that she recalled walking in the City after dinner and bumping into a former day student from the School on the street.136 180 With respect to the second meeting, the complainant said that they met at a hotel in the City. She said that Dr Raven arranged the meeting in the hotel. 181 The complainant said that they arrived separately, and that she believed that, when she arrived, Dr Raven was already there. The complainant said initially that she recalled that Dr Raven was in the shower. She said that when he got out of the shower, they attempted to have intercourse, but Dr Raven was not able to form an erection. The complainant said that she left shortly after that. She said the Respondent arranged the meeting in the hotel.137 182 The complainant then corrected herself and said that she believed that there was an attempt to have intercourse and that, afterwards, Dr Raven went to have a shower and that she left while he was in the shower.138 She said that was the last time she saw Dr Raven.139 183 Dr Raven agreed that they had met on two occasions when the complainant was in Perth after having started university, although he denied any sexual activity took place. He said that the complainant contacted him and said that she was coming back to Perth and he arranged to meet her in a bar in Subiaco Village, where she was working. He said he remembered the bar because it was still there and near a shop he frequented.140 His evidence was that the meeting was very brief, because the complainant was working. He said that he arranged to pick her up on another occasion. 184 Dr Raven said that he thought it was in the second half of 1985 because the complainant was working in licensed premises and, therefore, he believed she was 18 years of age. He had also looked up 134 ts 43, 17 November 2025. 135 ts 61, 17 November 2025. 136 ts 43 and 44, 17 November 2025. 137 ts 44, 17 November 2025. 138 ts 44, 17 November 2025. 139 ts 44, 17 November 2025. 140 ts 188 to 189, 24 November 2025. -- 45 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 46 the holiday program for her university at the time, and there was a break in August to September, between second and third term.141 185 Dr Raven said that, on the second occasion, he picked the complainant up and they went somewhere, but he could not recall where. He did recall that the complainant was smoking and that he said something about it, because he did not like smoking.142 Dr Raven said that he remembered making the decision never to contact her again saying 'she was a nice girl in 1983, and her personality had changed in 1985'.143 186 Dr Raven said that he had no memory of meeting the complainant in a hotel room. He said that the complainant's description of what happened was a complete fabrication.144 187 The complainant, in cross-examination, said that she thought they met in a bar in the City but conceded that that she had been working in a bar in Subiaco during the holidays between her first and second years at university. She said that she had been clearing tables and not serving alcohol as she was not then 18 years of age. She also said that she recalled Dr Raven saying something about her smoking, which she had started doing at university. 188 Accordingly, there is no disagreement, and we find that the complainant and Dr Raven did meet on two occasions in Perth after she began university in 1984. We think that it is more likely that this occurred at the end of 1984 and the beginning of 1985, as the complainant said, given the likelihood that the complainant would return to Western Australia for Christmas, during the longer university break. In our view, Dr Raven's evidence appeared to be the result of a process of reconstruction based on the complainant working in a bar, from which he has surmised she must have been 18, and therefore it was after May 1985. However, there is no reason to believe that a 17-year-old could not work in a role that did not involve alcohol service, as the complainant said. As the Board does not allege that anything that occurred on the two occasions they met constitutes professional misconduct, nothing turns on the complainant's age. 189 We will discuss the evidence about what is alleged to have occurred during the second meeting later in these reasons. 141 ts 190, 24 November 2025. 142 ts 189, 24 November 2025. 143 ts 189, 24 November 2025. 144 ts 189, 24 November 2025. -- 46 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 47 Number of meetings 190 We have said that we do not accept that the meetings occurred over the limited period of time that Dr Raven says. We also consider that it is likely that there were more outings that he now says he remembers. However, we are also not satisfied that there were as many as the complainant says occurred. 191 The complainant said that she believed there were somewhere in the order of 10 to 15 outings. 192 The complainant's evidence-in-chief was that her first meeting with Dr Raven occurred when she was visiting her mother, 'on one of the occasions that she was down for treatment'. It does not necessarily follow from this that the first meeting was on the first occasion that the complainant's mother was admitted to hospital for treatment, in October 1982, but leaves open the possibility it was on a later occasion. The only evidence that the complainant gave that she met Dr Raven in late 1982 was when that proposition was put to her in cross-examination and she agreed.145 193 The complainant said that she went home during the summer holidays and other school holidays.146 Accordingly, if the outings had begun in 1982, there must have been a significant gap of six to eight weeks during those holidays. However, the complainant's evidence was that the gaps between the outings may have been up to four weeks and that she did not recall there being months and months between them.147 This suggests that the outings began after the 1982/1983 summer holidays, in 1983. 194 The complainant said that the first outing took place weeks after her first meeting with Dr Raven, which would place that first outing between about the first week of November 1982, if the first meeting was in October 1982. However, if the first meeting was in 1983, the earliest it could have taken place would have been during the complainant's mother's second admission between 27 May and 12 June 1983. In those circumstances, the first outing may not have taken place until late June or early July 1983. 195 The complainant said that the occasion of the Italian restaurant outing may have been the third occasion that she went out with 145 ts 35 and 62, 17 November 2025. 146 ts 65 and 70, 17 November 2025. 147 ts 70, 17 November 2025. -- 47 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 48 Dr Raven, but she 'was not 100% sure'. She said that she had met him on a number of occasions before going to the Italian restaurant. The complainant said, in cross-examination, that she was not sure whether the abuse started before or after Christmas, and that it may have occurred in 1983.148 196 Accordingly, on her evidence, it may be that the Italian restaurant incident did not occur until February 1983. However, on the evidence referred to at [193] and [194] above, it may have been later than this. 197 If the outings began in early November 1982, and they were about 4 weeks apart there may have been two outings before the Christmas holidays period, with the Italian restaurant outing being something in February, after those holidays. If the outings continued at a rate of one every four weeks from mid-February 1983, there may have been around eight or nine outings before her mother's death on 15 October 1983, assuming a further four weeks at least were spent at home on school holidays. That would result in a total of around 11 outings at most. 198 However, if the outings did not begin until sometime in 1983, it would be difficult for there to have been as many as the complainant estimates, given her evidence about the period of time between outings. 199 We do not consider that the complainant was being dishonest in her evidence, including in her evidence about the number of outings. However, this uncertainty serves to emphasise the difficulty of relying on memory of events that occurred 40 years ago, where there is little objective evidence in support. 200 We do not consider that it is possible to find on the evidence how many outings took place. However, we have noted the evidence that suggests that Dr Raven and the complainant had a closer relationship than might be expected from the limited number of outings he says that he recalls. We have also said that, whilst we cannot find he lied in his evidence about the outings that he recalled, we do not consider that his evidence about this is reliable. This makes it easier for us to accept the complainant's evidence that there were more outings than Dr Raven said, and we make that finding. However, it does not assist us with deciding how many occasions occurred when Dr Raven and the complainant were alone, or on how many occasions he had the opportunity to engage in the sexual activity that is alleged against him. In the end, however, we do not consider that it is necessary for us 148 ts 64 to 65, 17 November 2025. -- 48 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 49 to do so. It was not suggested that Dr Raven did not have any opportunity to engage in the conduct alleged against him. 201 The crucial issue in this case is whether we are satisfied that Dr Raven took the complainant out on her own on two occasions, namely after dinner at an Italian restaurant, and the zoo, and that the alleged sexual activity took place on those occasions. Our consideration of the complainant's complaints about Dr Raven, and the inconsistencies between her evidence about each of those events and prior statements that she has made, is set out below. Accounts given to the complainant's brother and boyfriend 202 As we have already noted the Board relies on the complainant's allegations of abuse to others as evidence that bolsters her credibility. Account given to the complainant's brother 203 The complainant's evidence about what she told her brother about any sexual activity with Dr Raven was very vague. She initially said that, after the alleged abuse started, she spoke to her brother about it, and that he was the only person she spoke to about it at the time it was occurring. However, she said that she did not recall what she told her brother exactly and did not recall if she told him the details of the abuse. She said she did recall telling her brother that Dr Raven would pick her up from school and that she had a memory of talking to him about being at Dr Raven's house and telling him about the butterflies in the frames.149 204 In cross-examination, the complainant said that she thought that she told her brother that the outings were not just Dr Raven 'taking her out for a cup of tea', that the outings were 'more than just innocent outings', and that she thought that the conversation was about whether she was in some sort of romantic relationship with Dr Raven, and that she was seeking his advice.150 205 The complainant said that she next spoke to her brother about this on a family holiday. There is no dispute that this holiday took place more than 20 years later, in late 2005. The complainant said that on this occasion her brother told her that he did not know what had 149 ts 45, 17 November 2025. 150 ts 77 and 78, 17 November 2025. -- 49 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 50 occurred; that is, he did not remember being told anything about it by the complainant.151 The complainant said that this distressed her.152 206 The complainant's brother said in evidence that the first time the complainant told him anything the alleged abuse was on the family holiday. He said that the complainant revealed to him that she had been abused during her time in Perth when she attended hospital with their mother. She told him that, when she visited her mother, Dr Raven was very kind to her and, as a friend, invited her to be with him. He said that he thought that she may have mentioned that she would leave the hospital grounds with him and that he took advantage of her. The complainant's brother said that the complainant was not specific about what had happened, although it was very clearly sexual abuse. 207 This account may be said to be inconsistent with the complainant's evidence, because it suggests Dr Raven was collecting the complainant from the Hospital rather than the School. However, we draw no conclusions from this relatively minor inconsistency. 208 The Board submitted that the brother's absence of memory of the complaint does not contradict the complainant's memory that she did tell him something about her interactions with Dr Raven at the time. This was said to be because the brother was also young (although he was older than the complainant). We were invited to infer that he would have failed to appreciate the significance of being told that the complainant was meeting Dr Raven after school, and it would be perceived to be 'insignificant'. This appears to be an acceptance that the effect of the complainant's evidence was that she did not tell her brother anything other than that Dr Raven was taking her on outings from the school. However, that Dr Raven did so on some occasions is not in dispute. 209 We accept that the complainant has a memory of telling her brother something about being sexually abused by Dr Raven, although she was entirely unclear about what it was that she had said. That appears to be evidenced by her distress when she discovered that her brother had no memory of her doing so. However, we also find that her memory in this respect is unreliable. 210 We infer, from the complainant's brother's lack of knowledge of the alleged abuse before 2005, that the complainant did not tell her 151 ts 303, 1 December 2025. 152 ts 78, 17 November 2025. -- 50 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 51 brother in 1983 or 1984 anything that suggested Dr Raven was engaging in sexual activity with her and we make that finding. In our view, it is highly unlikely that the complainant's brother would have forgotten being told anything of that nature, as such a conversation could not be perceived as 'insignificant'. That the complainant did not tell her brother that Dr Raven was engaging in sexual activity with her is also, in our view, consistent with her vague evidence of what she actually said. 211 Dr Raven's counsel submitted that the complainant was being evasive about precisely what she recalled telling her brother. He said that the complainant had said in previous statements that she had told him about the abuse but was aware at the time of the hearing that her brother did not remember the abuse and was evasive for that reason. However, the complainant was aware from 2005 that her brother did not recall her telling him about any sexual abuse in 1983, long before she reported to Ahpra that she had complained to her brother. Accordingly, we do not believe that she was being deliberately evasive. However, we consider that the complainant's memory that she made such a complaint is wrong. 212 In our view, we can give little, if any, weight to the complainant's complaint to her brother in 2005. At that time, she had been repeating allegations of abuse by Dr Raven for a number of years, including when seeking mental health treatment from about 1997. That repetition does not, in our view, render her evidence more reliable about the specific incidents she complains of. Account given to the complainant's former boyfriend 213 The complainant said that she told her boyfriend at university about the alleged abuse in 1984 or 1985.153 She said that she probably told him in the middle of their relationship, that is in around the latter part of 1984.154 The complainant said that she believed that she had told the boyfriend that she was sexually abused by her mother's haematologist.155 214 The boyfriend said in his evidence, in effect, that during their relationship the complainant appeared to him to be in emotional pain and that it had been difficult to coax out of her what was wrong. He said that eventually she began to tell him about sexual abuse from a 153 ts 46, 17 November 2025. 154 ts 81, 17 November 2025. 155 ts 46, 17 November 2025. -- 51 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 52 doctor who was treating her mother during her illness.156 He said that this was about seven to nine months into their relationship: that is, between July and September 1984.157 215 The boyfriend said that the complainant told him that the doctor would make home visits, and they became more frequent as her mother became more ill. He said that it started with the doctor giving the complainant long hugs and that progressed to touching her body in different places, which progressed to kissing and sexual relations.158 216 It appeared from his evidence that the boyfriend's understanding was that the doctor had treated the complainant's mother in the rural town in which they lived, and that the alleged abuse had occurred in that town.159 However, this was in the context of his understanding that the complainant and her mother had lived in the rural town and the complainant had come to the university in the Eastern States where they met from that town.160 The complainant denied telling the boyfriend that the doctor who had abused her had made trips to the family home.161 217 Of more significance is that the boyfriend's evidence is inconsistent with the complainant's evidence of the progression of Dr Raven's sexual conduct towards her, which does not suggest a staged progression of touching. 218 We accept that the complainant complained that she had been sexually abused by a doctor treating her mother in the illness that ultimately killed the mother at some time in 1984 or 1985 and before the last occasion on which she saw Dr Raven. Whilst it may be inferred from the evidence162 that there were doctors treating the complainant's mother in Kalgoorlie, it was not put to her that she had mistaken Dr Raven for some other doctor, or that she was referring to some other doctor when she told the boyfriend about the alleged abuse. However, the difference in the account of the conduct that the complainant reported to the boyfriend results in our considering that report is of limited weight in determining whether the complainant's evidence about what occurred is reliable. 156 ts 160 and 161, 18 November 2025. 157 ts 161, 18 November 2025. 158 ts 161, 18 November 2025. 159 ts 162, 18 November 2025. 160 ts 160, 18 November 2025. 161 ts 80, 17 November 2025. 162 ts 65 and 66, 17 November 2025. -- 52 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 53 Decision to meet Dr Raven in 1984 219 It could be argued that the evidence of the complainant's meeting with Dr Raven a year after she had left school, which the complainant accepted had been initiated by her contacting Dr Raven, was inconsistent with her having been sexually abused by Dr Raven as she claims. Indeed, her evidence was that she struggled to understand why she met him.163 220 If the complainant was confused about the nature of her relationship with Dr Raven, as is suggested in her evidence about her conversation with her brother, that might explain her having chosen to contact him again. Such confusion might support her evidence about the sexual activity on the second meeting, although there are inconsistencies in relation to that evidence that we will discuss later in these reasons. 221 However, the complainant's evidence about this was equivocal. There is evidence that suggests that she always understood that Dr Raven had sexually abused her. We have already noted her evidence that, when she complained to her boyfriend before she returned to Perth, she said 'I think I would have used the words that I was sexually abused by my mother's haematologist'.164 In cross-examination the complainant said, 'I was always aware that what occurred between the practitioner, and I was wrong and that he abused me'. However, when asked whether she had always thought of it as child sexual abuse, the complainant said, 'No, not fully. I felt responsible in some way'. 222 Her decision to arrange to meet Dr Raven is difficult to understand if the previous sexual activity had occurred and, at that time, she believed that he had abused her, whether or not she felt responsible for it or identified it as 'child sexual abuse'. 223 However, we have accepted that she made a report of sexual abuse to her boyfriend, which must have been about Dr Raven, as her mother's haematologist. This occurred before her return to Perth in the summer of 1984 to 1985. In that context, her evidence that she had difficulty understanding why she had met him, and felt shame about it, is entirely plausible. We do not consider that meeting Dr Raven, in itself, undermines the credibility of her evidence. However, as 163 ts 104, 18 November 2025. 164 ts 46, 17 November 2025. -- 53 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 54 discussed below, we consider the inconsistencies in her evidence about that meeting do seriously undermine the reliability of her evidence. Inconsistency in the complainant's accounts of Dr Raven's conduct 224 In our view, the complainant appeared genuine in her belief that she had been sexually abused by Dr Raven when she was 15 years of age. When discussing the treatment she received in 2020, the complainant said that her memories did not change, but their effect on her did. However, the evidence supports a conclusion that her memories of the sexual activity have changed in three ways that are not peripheral but are significant. Account given to Dr Luscombe 225 The first, and most significant, inconsistency is in the complainant's evidence that the first occasion where sexual activity occurred was after the occasion where she had dinner with Dr Raven at the Italian restaurant and drank alcohol. As we have said, this is the only specific occasion referred to in the complainant's evidence where she says that sexual activity occurred in Dr Raven's parked car. 226 As we have said, as well as denying the sexual activity, Dr Raven denies going out with the complainant alone to an Italian restaurant, or that he gave her alcohol on any occasion. 227 We have in evidence a report from a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Simone Luscombe, dated 27 November 2022.165 Dr Luscombe says that she saw the complainant weekly from 10 May 2021, via a mix of face-to-face contact and telehealth appointments. She said that the complainant told her about alleged sexual abuse by Dr Raven when the complainant was 15 years old. Dr Luscombe said that the complainant had increasingly given her more details about the abuse and its impact on her mental health over 18 months and said, 'details of this history have been repeatedly given with consistency of content.' Dr Luscombe then gave a history which she said is a summary of her file notes from May 2021 to November 2022 that reference the alleged childhood sexual abuse and its impact on the complainant. 228 In particular, Dr Luscombe recounts the summary of her notes of the first occasion of alleged sexual abuse as follows: 165 Exhibit 10. -- 54 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 55 On the first occasion of alleged sexual abuse, [Dr Raven] had taken [the complainant] to an Italian restaurant and given her alcohol to drink. She recalls feeling tipsy, having never drunk as much alcohol. After dinner, when [Dr Raven] was driving her back to the boarding house, [the complainant] reports that [Dr Raven] drove past the usual turn off to her boarding house. [The complainant] recalls being confused and surprised when he stopped the car in a park. She reports that [Dr Raven] suddenly leant over and started kissing her. She said it was not enjoyable, and she cannot recall if there was any other sexual contact on that first night other than kissing. [The complainant] recalls approximately five other occasions when [Dr Raven] took her out and then back to the park in his car. During these later times, [Dr Raven] initiated kissing, the fondling of her breasts and genitals and digital vaginal penetration of [the complainant] … 229 The start of this account is in the same terms as the complainant's account in evidence before us of the first occasion on which she was driven by Dr Raven to a park after going to the Italian restaurant. The obvious difference in the account is that Dr Luscombe reports the complainant denied any memory of sexual contact on that first occasion other than Dr Raven kissing her. In our view, that is a very significant difference in the complainant's account. 230 It is not simply that Dr Luscombe does not refer to the specific complaints of Dr Raven touching her breasts, or her genitals, or of digital penetration, on this first occasion. Dr Luscombe has recorded a specific denial of any memory of any contact other than kissing. She does so in the context of Dr Luscombe saying that the complainant had given her details of the allegations repeatedly and consistently over a period where Dr Luscombe saw the complainant weekly for 18 months. 231 The following exchange occurred between Dr Raven's counsel and the complainant: Counsel: And the next sentence said, "She said it was not enjoyable, and she cannot recall if there was any other sexual contact on that first night other than kissing"? Complainant: Yes. Counsel: That's quite different to the evidence that you've given to the tribunal where you say you do have a specific memory of the touching on that first night? Complainant: Yes. -- 55 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 56 Counsel: Your memory of that has changed, hasn't it? Complainant: [Extended pause] What Dr Luscombe has written that I told her, it's different to what I have told you at the tribunal, yes. Counsel: Are you saying that you didn't tell Dr Luscombe that you couldn't recall whether there was any other sexual contact on that first occasion? Complainant: I don't remember if I told her that. Counsel: Do you accept - I withdraw that. You would only have told her that if that was true at the time? Complainant: I don't remember if I told her that. Counsel: You wouldn't have told her that if it was untrue? Complainant: I don't remember what I told Dr Luscombe. Counsel: Did you tell Dr Luscombe things that were untrue? Complainant: No. Counsel: So if you did tell Dr Luscombe that, it must be because you did not remember whether there had been any other touching at the time you were speaking to Dr Luscombe? Complainant: Sorry, could you repeat the question? Counsel: If you did tell Dr Luscombe what she has written in her notes, it must be because at the time you were speaking to Dr Luscombe, you could not specifically recall whether there had been any other touching on that first occasion? Complainant: No, I don't remember telling Dr Luscombe that. Could you repeat the question again? Sorry, there seems to be double negatives or something. If I did tell Dr Luscombe - - - Counsel: Let me try and put this as plainly as I can. Dr Luscombe says you told her that you cannot recall if there was any sexual contact on that first night other than the kissing. That's what Dr Luscombe has put in her notes. If you told her that, it must be because that was the state of your memory at the time you spoke to Dr Luscombe? -- 56 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 57 Complainant: [Extended pause] If I told her that - sorry. If I told her that - - - [extended pause] Counsel: Am I right in saying you don't have an explanation for why you would have told her that? Complainant: No, I do. I - I'm trying to recall - well, I know what it feels like to be telling someone about abuse and when you're distressed and overwhelmed and I don't believe it's a question of memory. I think it's sometimes a question of how distressed and overwhelmed, because I know what occurred. So if I told her that, it may - I'm not accepting that it's all due to my memory. I - I believe it probably was due to the state that I was at the time. 232 As is noted, this passage of evidence was punctuated by extended pauses on the complainant's part. The first pause was nearly a minute long, interrupted only by the complainant saying 'um'. The second and third pauses, which were punctuated by a few unresponsive words, lasted well over 2 minutes and ended only when Dr Raven's counsel spoke again. 233 When Dr Raven's counsel then put it to the complainant that she did not have an explanation, the complainant's response (in the last paragraph of the transcript quote above) was unsatisfactory. It might be expected that Dr Luscombe's notes might record that the complainant had difficulty speaking about the abuse because she was distressed or overwhelmed, if that was the case. However, one would not expect those notes to record (as they do) that the complainant said she had no memory of what had occurred on the only specific occasion in Dr Raven's parked car that the complainant has given evidence about in these proceedings. 234 The complainant also appeared evasive in her answers to some of Counsel's questions during this passage by saying that she was having difficulty understanding the questions, which, viewed objectively, were not difficult to understand, particularly by a person with tertiary level education. 235 In addition, at other times in her evidence, the complainant did not appear to have difficulty saying that she would not have said something that was recorded in other reports. However, she did not say that in response to counsel's questions in relation to Dr Luscombe's report. -- 57 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 58 236 The complainant presented as a highly educated, intelligent and articulate person. She did appear to be careful in considering her answers and, perhaps as a result of that, was prone to pausing before answering, although not to the extent that occurred during this passage of evidence. However, at best, this passage of evidence suggested that the complainant was having a great deal of difficulty reconciling what Dr Luscombe had reported she had said, with what she says is her current memory of the event. We have the same difficulty. 237 The report of the alleged abuse to Dr Luscombe was contemporaneous with the complainant's complaints to Ahpra and the police. The first occasion on which Dr Luscombe saw the complainant, on 10 May 2021, was 3 months after the complainant complained to Western Australian police on 20 February 2021 and 4 months before the complainant made her complaint about Dr Raven to Ahpra on 29 September 2021. In both of those complaints the complainant described the first occasion of alleged sexual abuse as involving Dr Raven kissing the complainant, touching her breasts and digitally penetrating her vagina. In the complaint to Ahpra, that occasion is said to be after Dr Raven had taken the complainant out to dinner at a restaurant and provided her with alcohol. In January 2022, while she was still seeing Dr Luscombe, the complainant gave Ahpra a statement identifying that first occasion consistently with the report of 29 September 2021 but identifying the restaurant as being an Italian restaurant in Northbridge. 238 It is difficult to understand how a witness with an actual recollection of the events the complainant described in her evidence could have related version to Dr Luscombe during the same time period that is materially different in a critical respect. 239 Whilst the comments on memory at [42] above indicate that memories can be labile until consolidated, that does not explain such a significant difference arising decades after the alleged events. 240 In our view, this inconsistency fundamentally undermines the complainant's evidence about the sexual activity that is alleged to have occurred in Dr Raven's parked car after the Italian restaurant. In our view, that concern applies to the whole of the complainant's evidence, including whether Dr Raven kissed the complainant on this occasion, and her assertion that the same thing occurred on other occasions, given the lack of detail attached to that evidence. -- 58 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 59 241 We accept that if something happens regularly you may not remember specific occasions on which that thing does occur, unless there is some reason to do so, such as it being the first occasion, or there was something different about the circumstances from what had occurred before. That is particularly likely to be the case where the allegations concern events from a long time ago. However, the effect of this is, in our view, that we must be satisfied about the complainant's account of that first occasion, after the Italian restaurant, before we could accept her evidence that these interactions were repeated on other occasions. Account of hotel room encounter 242 The second aspect of the complainant's evidence where she has previously provided materially different accounts concern the allegation that Dr Raven met her in a hotel room in the summer holidays between 1984 and 1985. This incident is not relied on by the Board as justifying disciplinary action. 243 The complainant said that she had contacted Dr Raven when she returned to Perth during that period, but that he had arranged the meeting in the hotel room. 244 As we have noted, the complainant said in her evidence first, that Dr Raven was in the hotel room when she arrived and that he was in the shower. She said that they attempted to have intercourse, but Dr Raven was not able to form an erection, and she left shortly thereafter. The complainant then changed her evidence, saying that Dr Raven had showered after they attempted to have intercourse and that she left when he was in the shower. 245 Leaving aside the change in the timing of the shower, the complainant is reported to have given two other versions of this event which differ in what we consider to be material ways. In the police report, the sexual activity is described as consensual penile vaginal intercourse. However, in her first statement to Ahpra, the complainant said, in effect, that there was no sexual activity with Dr Raven in the hotel room, saying that when she arrived Dr Raven was in the shower, she thought he was preparing himself for them to have intercourse, and she left. The account that is related in Dr Luscombe's report was similar to her evidence in that it is reported that the complainant and Dr Raven met at a café and then went to a hotel room where they had sexual contact but no penile vaginal penetration, and that the complainant left when Dr Raven went for a shower. -- 59 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 60 246 The description of an attempt at penile vaginal intercourse could also be described as sexual contact with no penile vaginal penetration or as penile vaginal intercourse. However, it is impossible to reconcile the complainant's evidence with the account first given to Ahpra that there was no sexual contact in the hotel room. That account was given 11 months after telling the police that there had been such contact and contemporaneously with telling Dr Luscombe there had been. 247 When taken to these apparent inconsistencies, the complainant initially denied that her memory of what happened at the meeting was not reliable. She then said, in relation to what occurred in the hotel room, 'you say my memory is not reliable at all. That's correct. But there are things that are consistent and reliable'.166 248 In our view, this inconsistency undermines the reliability of the complainant's evidence of her interactions with Dr Raven as a whole, including in the sexual activity that underpins the Board's allegations. Inconsistency in reporting to police 249 The third inconsistency concerns the complainant's report to police. 250 The complainant made a report to police in February 2021. The incident report says, in part: The complainant was befriended by Dr Raven and he would pick her up from school and take her out for coffee. Things developed from there and he began taking the complainant out for dinner and providing her with alcohol. One evening, Dr Raven stopped at a park in [redacted] and began kissing the complainant. While kissing the complainant he touched her breasts and digitally penetrated her vagina. The complainant touched Dr Raven's genitals. This occurred on a number of occasions between later 1982 and 1983. The abuse ended upon the death of the complainant's mother. The complainant moved to [redacted] to study at university and returned to Perth during the summer holidays in late 1984. She met Dr Raven and they went to a hotel room and had penile/vaginal intercourse (btb (sic) consensual). The complainant has not seen Dr Raven since and resides in Melbourne. 166 ts 134, 18 November 2025. -- 60 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 61 251 Whilst largely consistent with the complainant's evidence about the alleged sexual activity after the Italian restaurant, the reported account differs in two ways, being: (a) what occurred in the hotel room, which we have discussed; and (b) that the complainant touched Dr Raven's genitals on the first occasion he engaged in sexual activity with her, which is also reported to be part of what occurred on the following occasions. 252 When asked about the second of these inconsistencies, the complainant appeared both defensive and evasive. 253 When asked whether she had told the police that she had touched Dr Raven's genitals on that first occasion, the complainant did not answer the question but said that she did not remember touching his genitals. When asked again, the complainant said that she did not remember telling the police that. At this point, the complainant was shown a copy of the police report, and the following exchange with Dr Raven's counsel took place: Counsel: So I'm going to suggest to you that you told the police …that you touched the practitioner's genitals. Do you have anything you want to say about that? Complainant: No. Counsel: And I'm going to suggest that your memory of that night now is different to when you spoke to the police. Do you have anything to say about that? Complainant: I recall when I gave this statement, I rang the police in Western Australia and I can't remember how I got the number, and I spoke - I spoke to someone, and then I think someone called me back to take the statement. I think that was what occurred. And I was highly distressed reporting this to police and it's - and I - I was in a highly distressed state when reporting this to police. 254 In re-examination, the complainant added to this answer as follows: Counsel: … Had you seen that detective incident report before you were shown it today? Complainant: I don't remember seeing it … I don't recall seeing that, no. -- 61 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 62 Counsel: You said, in answer to some questions today, that you were highly distressed when you made a phone call to the police and the notification about the respondent. How did being highly distressed affect your communication during that phone call? Complainant: Very - it's very difficult - it's very difficult to talk to a complete stranger about what occurred. Very difficult to maintain your composure, continue with something you've commenced, that, you know, you feel like it's taking you down a path that you weren't ready for, going back over things that have occurred in the past. I think it - I think - I know that when I talk about it, I'm distressed. I'm giving the account that I can at that time. But it's - it's very, very difficult. It's equally difficult - well, it's just difficult talking about it any time, really, to be honest with you. 255 It is implicit in the complainant's responses that she accepted that she may have told the police that she had touched Dr Raven's genitals. Indeed, we consider it improbable that detail would have been added by the police without the complainant having said something along the lines of what she is reported to have said. 256 It is understandable that reporting sexual abuse would cause the person making the report to be distressed and anxious, and that may cause some things to be left out. It might also affect their ability to remember what they had said when making the report. However, it is difficult to understand how such feelings might cause the complainant, 38 years after the alleged events, to report that something had occurred, which she now says she has no memory of occurring. 257 Again, this could not be explained by the difficulties with memory referred to in [42] above. The report to police was made in 2021. By that point, the complainant had made allegations of abuse to a number of psychologists and psychiatrists, as well as to the solicitors acting for her in the civil proceedings. Other issues with the complainant's evidence 258 As we have said, the complainant said that her recollection was that the one occasion on which she met Dr Raven's wife and daughter was after the sexual activity with Dr Raven had begun: that is after the occasion where they went to the Italian restaurant together. -- 62 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 63 259 It is difficult to accept that her recollection of this timeline is correct. Dr Raven would have been taking a significant risk to have introduced his wife and daughter to the complainant, and allowed them to spend time with her, if he had commenced engaging in the sexual activity with the complainant, as alleged. It is hard to fathom what might have motivated him to have done so, given it was the complainant's evidence that she had been seeing him on his own without apparent difficulty on numerous occasions before that. 260 That is not to say that a man who is engaging in the behaviour that is alleged by the complainant may not take such risks. However, this does add to the overall improbability of the events happening as the complainant alleges, and, according, to the reliability of her evidence. Conclusions 261 In our view, Dr Raven was an unsatisfactory witness, and we have found that he lied in his defence of the allegations. However, that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the complainant's evidence about the particular sexual activity that she alleges occurred is truthful and reliable, or accurate. Dr Raven vehemently denied any sexual activity took place at any time. He also denied that he had ever taken the complainant to an Italian restaurant on her own or that he had taken the complainant to the zoo. 262 We have also said that we are satisfied that there were a greater number of meetings with the complainant than Dr Raven admits, and that the evidence suggests that he had a close relationship with the complainant in 1983. However, that is also not a sufficient basis on which to make a finding that Dr Raven did the things the complainant alleges, either on its own or in combination with dissatisfaction with Dr Raven as a witness. 263 In order to find professional misconduct, we must be actually persuaded that the complainant's evidence is reliable and forms a proper basis for our being satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Dr Raven engaged in the sexual acts that are relied on by the Board to constitute professional misconduct. 264 The Board's counsel submitted that there were only two possible options. First, that the complainant was telling the truth and the sexual conduct occurred, and second, that the complainant was lying. The submission was made that the complainant could not be mistaken -- 63 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 64 about the sexual activity occurring.167 We do not accept that submission. In our view, it fails to take into account the fact that the complainant is giving evidence about something that is alleged to have happened nearly four decades ago. 265 The fact that the complainant was not a very young child, although she was 15 or 16, at the time of the alleged events does not, in our view, require the conclusion that she could not now be mistaken about what occurred. She was still young, and it was still a very long time ago. 266 We find that the complainant was an honest witness, and did not seek to lie. We accept that she genuinely believes that what she says occurred with Dr Raven in his car actually occurred. However, in our view, the significant and unexplained inconsistencies that we have identified in her evidence, undermines her evidence as a whole. The result is that we cannot accept that the complainant is a reliable witness in the central allegations that she makes against Dr Raven about what is alleged to have occurred in his parked car after they had been to the Italian restaurant. We have already noted the lack of detail attached to the allegation that the same conduct occurred on any other occasion, which amounts to mere assertion. As a result, we are not positively persuaded that the sexual activity alleged to have taken place in Dr Raven's car occurred on the occasion after the Italian restaurant or on any subsequent occasion. Accordingly, the Board has failed to meet its onus to prove those allegations. 267 As to the remaining allegation that Dr Raven touched the complainant's breast at the zoo, we are also not positively persuaded that this occurred. 268 We are satisfied that Dr Raven may have had the opportunity to take the complainant to the zoo on a weekend, despite his denial that he always worked. On his own evidence, he did not work on a Saturday afternoon. 269 However, the details of this allegation are very limited. The complainant does not actually say what Dr Raven is said to have touched her breast with, although we presume we are asked to infer that Dr Raven touched her with his hand. She gives no details of what was happening when this occurred other than Dr Raven's apparent interest in her bare back and lack of a bra. She does not say what led her to think he was interested in this, whether it was what he said, or 167 ts 263, 1 December 2025. -- 64 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 65 something he did. There is no evidence of what part of the complainant's breast was touched, how long that touch lasted, or the circumstances in which that touch occurred. 270 In addition, on the evidence this particular allegation was not raised until the complainant gave a statement to Ahpra on 30 January 2022. There is reference to the complainant having referred to the zoo visit in consultations with Dr Luscombe. However, Dr Luscombe's notes record a complaint that Dr Raven touched the complainant's back inappropriately and for an abnormal length of time. There is no complaint that he touched her breast. In addition, the writ filed in the civil proceedings in June 2021 made no reference to this alleged incident.168 271 In our view, in order for this conduct to amount to professional misconduct, we would have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities both that Dr Raven touched the complainant' breast and that he did so deliberately. In order to be satisfied that it occurred we would have to be satisfied that Dr Raven did take the complainant to the zoo, as this is a central detail in her account. 272 Whilst we have accepted that Dr Raven may have had the opportunity to visit the zoo with the complainant that does not require the conclusion either that Dr Raven did go to the zoo with her or that Dr Raven did what she alleges. 273 Whilst the lack of detail may be explicable by the passage of time, it is not, in our view, a proper basis on which to make a serious finding against Dr Raven, in the face of his denials, particularly given the lateness of the report of this compliant, the inconsistency with Dr Luscombe's report and our finding that her evidence about the more serious sexual allegations is unreliable. 274 After considering all the relevant evidence, we are unable to reach the required degree of satisfaction that the alleged conduct at the zoo occurred. 275 It follows from our findings that the Board has not established any of its allegations against Dr Raven on the balance of probabilities. Pursuant to s 196(1)(a) of the National Law we have decided Dr Raven has no case to answer and that no further action is to be taken in relation to this matter. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 168 Exhibit 9. -- 65 of 66 -- [2026] WASAT 84 Page 66 Orders The Tribunal orders: 1. The application is dismissed. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. WH Associate to the Deputy President Judge Vernon 14 JULY 2026 -- 66 of 66 --