Psychologist Stephen F. Kreft suspended for patient sex

On May 28, 2013, the Psychology Tribunal of New South Wales reprimanded Stephen Frank Kreft and suspended him for six months for, among other things, engaging in improper or unethical conduct.

The Tribunal’s document states that Kreft failed to observe proper professional boundaries in relation to a female client he treated in early- to mid-2008, to whom he made comments about her physical appearance and solicited comments from her about his; disclosed details about his love life and sex life and other personal details.

The document also states that he failed to observe proper boundaries with another female client whom he treated in 2006, with whom he ultimately entered into a personal and sexual relationship.

The Tribunal additionally placed various conditions on Kreft’s license and he was required to pay Health Care Complaints Commission’s costs of $60,000.


5 responses to “Psychologist Stephen F. Kreft suspended for patient sex

  1. stephen kreft

    Prepare yourself for a major defamation claim. You are very inaccurately and detrimentally representing the facts of this case and I can prove the major detriment to my practice directly relating to your biased reporting. Do you not have a conscience? The circumstances of my errors were in no way dishonourable and this is accurately shown by the transcript of the case. Please remove the article immediately or I will take immediate legal action. If you wish to discuss please email and I will clarify your misconceptions.

    • Dear Stephen,

      Prepare yourself for a reality check.

      The news item on this blog is derived wholly from the public document issued by the Psychology Tribunal of New South Wales. Hence, there is (1) no additive or editorial content in our posting; (2) no misconception to clarify; and (3) no bias. It is a summation of the Tribunal’s ruling against you.

      So, if you have issues with the story, by all means, take them up…with the Tribunal, as they are the source of the information, which they in turn provided to the public.



  2. stephen kreft

    Dear Sue?

    Thank you for your response to my attempt to communicate with you.
    With regard to said response I will say that any so called ‘reality checks’ that I required have been painstakingly and appropriately served by the community sanctioned professional bodies tasked to the handling of professional practice issues. This occurred via the due process of a very thoroughly conducted investigation and hearing. The Tribunal is a government mandated appropriate mechanism for such action, that stands starkly juxtaposed to the vigilante approach employed by some nameless, faceless bloggers who for the most part are relegated to reside solely in the shadows of the Hollywood tabloids.

    The Tribunal is mandated via parliamentary legislation to protect the community. It is required to de-register any psychologist who is found to pose any risk to the community in the provision of their services. This is a very important task that is not treated lightly. In its thoroughly considered wisdom the Tribunal determined that I am fit to practice as a psychologist with the implementation of temporary practice conditions. I have been carefully assessed and found to be of NO risk to my clients and have been approved to continue to provide valuable psychological assistance to those that require it.

    As a dedicated and busy professional I am typically short of spare time. But when circumstances allow, I intend to write openly about my past practise errors and present these writings to both public and professional forums. One undeniable distinction between what I post and what an anonymous blogger may choose to portray, is that I will be fully accountable for the statements and/or perceptions I instill and answerable for them to my professional bodies, their codes of practice and applicable Australian law. I have no desire to place my professional practice at risk of censure or sanction. Therefore readers can, at minimum, be assured that anything I say will be the accurate truth and not the unscrutinised writings of a faceless blogger who may believe herself answerable to none and free to manipulate reader impressions at whim to meet her own personal agenda.

    I assume your intentions in publishing this blog are honourable and if so then you would fairly consider what is inappropriately inferred about the people you speak of by every page of your site. A good reporter promotes an accurate perception of the issue they are reporting. This is not what you have done. If you are a good reporter, or intend to be, then please consider this.

    Finally, I have sought advice and I am informed that my previous assertions as to your legal liability are well founded. It is not my responsibility to alert you to the errors of your publication, nor to tutor you in the tort of defamation. I believe it is sufficient under law that I have alerted you that your publication is in error and defamatory. Should you continue with your insistence on retaining the post then the courts will decide the cost of your continued complacency.

    You appear to go by the name Sue. Rather than persist with your nameless, faceless stance, why don’t you save us all some time and money and provide your full contact details for the service of the summons. You also are not above appropriate community standards or the law. If you prefer to remain anonymous from me personality I can provide my Lawyers contact details so that you may provide it to them.

    Alternatively, kindly remove your unconscionably misleading post to mitigate any further harm to me, my family, my past and present clients, my profession and my community.

    Yours Faithfully

    Stephen Kreft BSc BSc (Hons) MAPS
    Registered Psychologist

    • Dear Stephen,


      Your threats are nothing but pathetic.

      Bigger yawn.

      It must really suck to think of yourself as being such a fine, upstanding, educated person with supposedly special knowledge of the human condition…and then to be exposed as being a yob, unable to control your personal desires–unable to keep your dick in your knickers.

      It must really suck to get caught.

      The story stays. I hope the imaginary lawyers you’re intending to sic on me are better than the one(s) who failed to save your ass from the Tribunal’s fire.

      Even bigger yawn.


      PS: I see that the same story is posted elsewhere on the Web. Are you petrifying the adminstrators of those sites too with your toothless threats of legal action?

  3. William BOYDELL

    Dear Sue,

    Keep up the good work. You have only reported the facts as you say which were also reported by the online news website of the Australian Broadcasting Commission:

    I believe Stephen was relatively fortunate with the lenient penalties. It is well documented that those that commit these offences fear more than any other penalty the reporting of their activities. This seems to be the case here.

    best regards,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s