THE hearing into accusations of rape and sexual assault against North Yorkshire psychiatrist Dr William Kerr has revealed disturbing weaknesses in patient protection.

Those who testified against Dr Kerr were very vulnerable women. He visited some of them at home, alone. This left both doctor and patient exposed to potential abuse or malicious allegations.

When former patients levelled serious complaints against Dr Kerr, the lack of a third party presence meant no one could provide independent testimony.

The way complaints against the doctor were mishandled is the most shocking aspect of this case.

One patient confided in a different psychiatrist, not knowing it was Dr Kerr's wife. Astonishingly, another complainant was interviewed by Dr Kerr himself. She subsequently withdrew her complaint.

More unbelievable still was the reaction of the York Health Authority. The general manager at that time effectively endorsed what would nowadays be a flagrant disregard for proper procedure, suggesting that a psychiatrist's relationship with a patient was above reproach or intervention.

This was the dominant attitude of the health authorities for many years. Because they were psychiatric patients, the women involved were routinely dismissed as unreliable.

The women only found the confidence to reiterate their allegations years later. Unfortunately, however, there were then lengthy delays before a full hearing took place. Dr Kerr's legal team used every method at their disposal to avert a trial, citing various legal grounds. In the meantime, Dr Kerr's health deteriorated to the extent that he was found unfit to stand trial.

Eventually, a hearing found he had indecently assaulted one patient and cleared him of six other charges. Twelve further allegations lie on the file. This is a deeply unsatisfactory outcome for both the accused and the accusers.

An independent review into the Kerr case has been ordered. It must examine the health authorities' new complaint procedures to ensure that patients will have any grievance thoroughly investigated by a neutral party. It must ensure that a vulnerable patient is never again exposed to abuse from her psychiatrist.

The mistakes in the Kerr case must not be repeated.