Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Thistlethwaite [2023] NSWCATOD 95 Hearing dates: 8 – 10 May 2023 Date of orders: 30 June 2023 Decision date: 30 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: S McIllhatton, Senior Member A McAlpine, Senior Member M Smith, Senior Member M Ficarra, General Member Decision: (1) Under s 149C(1)(c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), the registration of the Respondent is cancelled. (2) Under s 149C(7) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), a non-review period of 5 years is imposed. (3) Under s 149C(5) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), the Respondent is prohibited from providing a health service as defined by s 4 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW). (4) Under clause 13 of Schedule 5D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), the Respondent is to pay the Applicant's costs as agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW). (5) The Respondent's application for a non-publication order of his name is refused. (6) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), an order is made prohibiting the publication or disclosure of the names of Patients A – H and the name of Person A listed in the Schedule attached to the Complaint. Catchwords: OCCUPATIONS – paramedic – professional registration and discipline – criminal offences and convictions – unsatisfactory professional conduct – unfit in the public interest – prohibition order – non-publication order Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 64 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61KD(1)(a), 61M(1) Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW), s 4 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), ss 3, 3A, 41, 139B, 144, 149C, 165K, Sch 5D cll 7, 13 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) Cases Cited: Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (No 2) [2021] NSWCATOD 84 Health Care Complaints Commission v Grygiel (Termination Application) [2020] NSWCATOD 53 Health Care Complaints Commission v Karunaratne (No 2) [2018] NSWCATOD 201 Health Care Complaints Commission v Limboro [2018] NSWCATOD 117 Heath Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342 Health Care Complaints Commission v Vo [2014] NSWCATOD 127 Health Care Complaints Commission v Wood [2020] NSWCATOD 60 Kostov v Ecclesia Housing Limited (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 221 Lee v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 80 Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25 Pharmacy Council of NSW v Ibrahim [2020] NSWSC 708 Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) Peter John Thistlethwaite (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) Respondent (self-represented) File Number(s): 2022/00284154 Publication restriction: Pursuant to section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), publication or disclosure of the names of Patients A – H and Person A listed in the Schedule attached to the Complaint is prohibited. [THIS DECISION HAS BEEN AMENDED] REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1. By Application dated 20 September 2022, the Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission), seeks disciplinary findings and orders under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (the National Law) against Peter Thistlethwaite, a paramedic. 2. The Application is supported by a Complaint. The Complaint was subsequently amended at the hearing, and as amended was reduced to two individual complaints. 3. The first Complaint sets out 16 offences of which Mr Thistlethwaite was convicted. These offences were of aggravated sexual touching of patients in his care. The case against Mr Thistlethwaite was he had used his position as a paramedic to conduct assessments of young female patients on intimate areas of their bodies that were not clinically necessary and which he was not trained to perform. 4. The second Complaint is of inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature by Mr Thistlethwaite towards a co-worker. Background 1. Mr Thistlethwaite obtained his Bachelor of Paramedic Practice from the University of Tasmania in 2017. He became registered under the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) on 21 February 2019. In May 2018, he was employed by Safety Australia Group as a paramedic supplied to NSW Trains for the provision of paramedic services at NSW railway stations. He was appointed Medic Team Leader by his employer in January 2019. Mr Thistlethwaite was terminated from his employment on 30 July 2019. 2. Commencing in July 2019, a number of young women came forward and made allegations of inappropriate touching by Mr Thistlethwaite that they stated occurred when they were examined by him following episodes of feeling unwell while travelling on a train or at a railway station. 3. On 7 August 2019, Mr Thistlethwaite was charged with 16 counts of 'aggravated – sexually touch another person' contrary to s 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and one count of 'assault – commit an act of indecency under authority' contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act. 4. On 15 October 2021, following a defended trial by jury on all counts in the District Court of New South Wales in Sydney, Mr Thistlethwaite was convicted of 16 offences of 'aggravated – sexually touch another person' contrary to s 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. These offences were committed against eight victims. He was found not guilty of the offence of 'assault – commit an act of indecency under authority' contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act. 5. Mr Thistlethwaite was sentenced to serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months to commence on 14 October 2021 and expiring on 13 April 2025, with a non-parole period of two years. He is currently incarcerated. The Application and Complaint 1. Complaint One is made under s 144(a) of the National Law, which provides that a ground for complaint may be made about a registered health practitioner who has been convicted of or made the subject of a criminal finding for an offence. 2. The Commission says that the circumstances of the offences of which Mr Thistlethwaite was convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practise paramedicine. If Mr Thistlethwaite is found to be unfit in the public interest to practise, the Commission seeks cancellation of his registration under s 149C(1)(c) of the National Law. 3. Complaint Two is made under s 144(b) of the National Law and is of unsatisfactory professional conduct towards a co-worker. The Commission seeks a finding on this complaint. An established complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct does not trigger powers of suspension or cancellation of registration. 4. The Commission also seeks a prohibition order prohibiting Mr Thistlethwaite from providing health service as defined in s 4 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) and its costs. The Evidence and Hearing 1. The Commission relied on a set of documents as evidentiary material in support of the Application and Complaint. These documents encompassed but were not limited to Police and Court Records including witness statements, NSW police fact sheets, expert evidence from health professionals, transcripts of evidence in the District Court proceedings, District Court Sentence decision, Sentence Assessment Report, Psychologist Report (Pre-Sentence Consultation) and Certificates of Conviction. This material also included documents relevant to complaint two and Mr Thistlethwaite's conduct towards Person A. 2. Mr Thistlethwaite did not file a reply to the Application and Complaint or any documents in response to the Commission's material with the Tribunal. He did, however, send a brief reply dated 1 May 2023 to the Commission. At the commencement of the hearing, the Commission provided this document to the Tribunal. The reply simply stated, "Not guilty on all counts." 3. Mr Thistlethwaite participated in the hearing by audio visual link and during the course of the hearing provided two handwritten statements for consideration. The first statement set out his perspective on the convictions. The second requested a non-publication order of his name in these proceedings and his reasons for seeking that order. He chose not to give sworn evidence to support these statements. 4. Both Stage 1, regarding the extent to which the Complaint is established against Mr Thistlethwaite, and Stage 2, regarding the issue of what disciplinary orders it was appropriate for the Tribunal to make, were the subject of evidence and submissions at the hearing. The possibility of dealing with Stage 2 after the completion of Stage 1 was raised with Mr Thistlethwaite. He indicated that it was his preference to deal with both Stages 1 and 2 at the hearing. Complaint One: Convicted of Criminal Offences 1. This complaint is brought under s 144(a) of the National Law. The complaint sets out the 16 offences of which Mr Thistlethwaite was convicted as follows: "a. Sexual touching of Patient A in circumstances of aggravation on 16 January 2019 at Wolli Creek, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 2]. b. Sexual touching of Patient A in circumstances of aggravation on 16 January 2019 at Wolli Creek, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 3]. c. Sexual touching of Patient A in circumstances of aggravation on 16 January 2019 at Wolli Creek, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 4]. d. Sexual touching of Patient B in circumstances of aggravation on 29 January 2019 at Sydney, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 5]. e. Sexual touching of Patient C in circumstances of aggravation on 11 February 2019 at Redfern, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 6]. f. Sexual touching of Patient C in circumstances of aggravation on 11 February 2019 at Redfern, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 7]. g. Sexual touching of Patient D in circumstances of aggravation on 20 March 2019 at Redfern, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 8]. h. Sexual touching of Patient E in circumstances of aggravation on 11 June 2019 at Hurstville, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 9]. i. Sexual touching of Patient E in circumstances of aggravation on 11 June 2019 at Hurstville, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 10]. j. Sexual touching of Patient E in circumstances of aggravation on 11 June 2019 at Hurstville, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 11]. k. Sexual touching of Patient E in circumstances of aggravation on 11 June 2019 at Hurstville, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 12]. l. Sexual touching of Patient F in circumstances of aggravation on 24 July 2019 at Wolli Creek, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 13]. m. Sexual touching of Patient F in circumstances of aggravation on 24 July 2019 at Wolli Creek, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 14]. n. Sexual touching of Patient F in circumstances of aggravation on 24 July 2019 at Wolli Creek, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 15]. o. Sexual touching of Patient G in circumstances of aggravation on 26 July 2019 at Redfern, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 16]. p. Sexual touching of Patient H in circumstances of aggravation on 26 July 2019 at Redfern, under section 61KD(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [sequence 17]." 1. Factual matters underpinning the findings of guilt made by the jury are set out in sentencing remarks made by King SC DCJ on 15 October 2021 at [1]-[5]. They are as follows: "1. The offender was a university qualified and registered paramedic. He was employed as a first aid medic and team leader at Sydney Train stations. 2. The eight victims were female train passengers aged from 17-29 years. The offender was 37 or 38 years of age at the time of offending. 3. The offender provided first aid paramedic treatment to each of the victims in small rooms at train stations. 4. The victims were typically suffering from nausea and dizziness with some of the victims vomiting or fainting. None of the victims were assessed by the offender as an urgent case. None of the victims required any medical treatment beyond that provided by the offender. 5. The offences were committed while the victims were being treated as patients of the offender. The offending conduct involved calculated sexual touching under the guise of genuine medical treatment. The offending commenced in January 2019 and continued until July 2019. The offending became more brazen during that period and more serious over time. The offender did not desist from his course of sexual touching. The offender only stopped because he was reported by [one of the victims] and then arrested." 1. The evidence before us includes His Honour's remarks on sentence and Certificates of Conviction. The evidence before us substantiates each of the convictions detailed in Complaint One. Accordingly, Complaint One is proven. Complaint Two: Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct 1. This is a complaint that Mr Thistlethwaite is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 139B(1)(l) of the National Law in that he has engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of paramedicine. 2. The particulars for this complaint are as follows: 1. On 27 March 2019, Mr Thistlethwaite engaged in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature towards his colleague, Person A, in that he: 1. said words to the effect of "I like the way they look" when referring to Person A's black jeans; 2. said words to the effect of "it will be dangerous to work with you because you are cute"; 3. showed a photo of his tattoo to Person A which covered his back and buttocks; 4. said words to the effect of "FYI the contracts don't state that we can't have relationships with colleagues and seeing that we're both single we can message and see what happens"; and 5. called Person A at approximately 10:15am and said words to the effect of "now you have my number too" before sending two text messages on WhatsApp to Person A. 1. On 28 March 2019, Mr Thistlethwaite engaged in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature towards his colleague, Person A, in that he: 1. at approximately 9:45am said words to the effect of "that's a shame, I was going to ask you to have lunch with me"; 2. said words to the effect of "you can nap at my place" and "I promise I won't watch you when you're asleep" and "oh, you want me to watch you"; and 3. sent a text message on WhatsApp to Person A which stated, "Now I could make some crude joke about you having the afternoon off because your pussy needs some attention … but I won't do that." 1. By reason of the conduct in particulars 1 and 2, Mr Thistlethwaite acted contrary to clauses 1.2 and 4.2 of the Paramedicine Board of Australia 'Code of Conduct for Paramedics' effective June 2018. 1. Supplementing the material relied upon by the Commission, evidence in support of this complaint included oral evidence from Person A. 2. On 26 March 2019, Person A started working as an employee of Safety Australia Group. She was assigned the role of paramedic working in the Sydney Train network. Person A gave evidence that Mr Thistlethwaite was a "roaming" paramedic and held the role of medic team leader. He was in charge of the paramedics. 3. On 27 March 2019, Person A turned up for her first day of work at Wolli Creek train station. Mr Thistlethwaite was tasked with doing an 'induction' for Person A. According to Person A, they were talking in the staff room about suitable work attire. Within 10 minutes of meeting Mr Thistlethwaite, he told her "I like the way they (your jeans) look when you walk away from me". Person A doesn't recall if she said anything in response, but knows it made her feel uncomfortable. Person A said this comment made her feel sexualised. 4. Mr Thistlethwaite and Person A then moved into another room to go through her employment contract. Whilst they were doing that, and perhaps 20 minutes later, Mr Thistlethwaite said words to the effect of "it will be dangerous to work with you because you are cute". 5. Whilst in this room, Person A saw that Mr Thistlethwaite had a tattoo on his arm and asked him about it. Mr Thistlethwaite then showed a photo of his tattoo, that he had on his phone, to Person A which covered Mr Thistlethwaite's back and buttocks. Person A had assumed the tattoo was only on his arm and then thought, "great, now I've seen his bum". She gave evidence he was not wearing any underwear and that made her feel very uncomfortable, she did not expect or want to see him naked. 6. Mr Thistlethwaite continued to ask personal questions of Person A. He asked her why she moved to Australia. Person A told him that she moved here for a guy but now they are not together. He then asked if she was single. He said words to the effect of "FYI the contracts don't state that we can't have relationships with colleagues and seeing that we're both single we can message and see what happens". 7. Person A gave evidence that she was caught off-guard by that comment and didn't know how to respond. She told Mr Thistlethwaite he already had her number due to work. When asked why she did that, she said she was sitting at a table with the contract open, opposite her boss, who was looking right at her. Person A took the comments seriously. It made her feel like she couldn't go to her boss with problems because he viewed her as someone he could have a relationship with outside work. 8. Person A's shift ended at 10am. Mr Thistlethwaite called Person A at approximately 10:15am and said words to the effect of "now you have my number too" before sending two text messages on WhatsApp to Person A. 9. That afternoon, Person A went to work at a second job at a recreational centre. When she got home, she told her housemate how Mr Thistlethwaite had commented on her pants and that it made her uncomfortable. 10. The following day, 28 March 2019, Person A was again working at Wolli Creek train station. Mr Thistlethwaite had told Person A the day before that he would not be working the following day, so she was surprised to see him. He said he had attended to do some training with Person A. Person A told him that she was very tired as she had not had a good night's sleep and was looking forward to going home for a nap. 11. Around 9:45am, Mr Thistlethwaite said words to the effect of "that's a shame, I was going to ask you to have lunch with me". Person A told Mr Thistlethwaite that she was too tired and was just going to head home and have a nap before the next shift. 12. Mr Thistlethwaite said words to the effect of "you can nap at my place". Person A declined and said she needed to go home and sort things out. Mr Thistlethwaite then said words to the effect, "I promise I won't watch you when you're asleep". Person A replied that, that comment alone makes her say no. Mr Thistlethwaite replied "oh, you want me to watch you?" Person A said "no, that comment makes me think that's a bad idea". 13. Person A gave evidence that this conversation occurred on the top floor of the train station. They were standing about an arms' length apart, and he was in her eyeline. This made it difficult for Person A to express how she felt about those comments he made. She was very uncomfortable. 14. Person A did not believe Mr Thistlethwaite was joking. She felt he was forward and pushy about it, particularly given the way Mr Thistlethwaite had been towards her the day before. 15. Person A gave evidence that she was supposed to work the afternoon shift starting at 3:00pm. At 2:13pm, Person A and Mr Thistlethwaite spoke on the phone. Person A told him that she could not come in for the second shift as she needed to take her cat to the vet. Mr Thistlethwaite said that was fine. 16. After the conversation ended, Mr Thistlethwaite sent a message on WhatsApp to Person A which stated, "Now I could make some crude joke about you having the afternoon off because your pussy needs some attention … but I won't do that." 17. Person A did not read the above message until about 4pm as she was at the vet. Her housemate was with her at the time. She thinks she was either in the car on the way home or at home when she read the message out loud to her housemate and said, "that's disgusting". Her housemate told Person A, "that's not okay, you should do something about it". 18. Person A gave evidence that she felt generally uncomfortable; it was another sexualised comment from her team leader. Person A did not reply to the message. 19. At 7:23pm, Mr Thistlethwaite called Person A. She didn't answer the call. Mr Thistlethwaite then sent her a text message asking, "everything ok?" Person A then blocked Mr Thistlethwaite's number from her phone because she didn't want to have conversations with him after that. 20. Person A was asked if that was the last contact she had with Mr Thistlethwaite, and she said she called him on or about 3 April 2019, to tell him that she couldn't come in for a shift. She doesn't recall if it was a shift that day. 21. On 3 April 2019, when Person A was working at her other job, she received a telephone call from Lauren Keft, the daughter of Robert and Lee Keft who owned Safety Australia Group. Lauren worked in the family business. Person A gave evidence that Lauren called her to tell her that if she continued to cancel shifts then she would not continue working for them. 22. Person A's boss at the recreation centre told her that she should tell Lauren what had occurred with Peter. Person A called Lauren back and told her why she had been cancelling shifts. Lauren wanted to arrange a meeting for Person A with Robert and Lee Keft. 23. The same day, 3 April 2019, Person A emailed the notes she had made about the interactions with Mr Thistlethwaite to Lauren Keft. The email attached some screenshots of the missed call contact and outgoing/incoming calls contact (in Swedish) from Mr Thistlethwaite, as well as screenshots of the message conversation on WhatsApp. 24. The meeting was arranged for 10 April 2019. The meeting was attended by Robert and Lee Keft, and Person A and her housemate (there as a support person). In evidence, Person A was shown some handwritten notes that were titled "11am Meeting [Person A] 5/4/19". She confirmed that those notes were not an accurate representation of the conversation that she had at the meeting. 25. Person A confirmed that the only meeting she had with the Kefts was on 10 April 2019. She was not satisfied with the resolution of the matter. She had expected that a more concrete answer about what they were going to do about Mr Thistlethwaite's behaviour. She felt it was something you could be dismissed for and was concerned that if he had done this to her so openly, he might be doing the same to others. 26. Person A left the employ of Safety Australia Group on 29 April 2019. 27. Mr Thistlethwaite did not ask any questions of Person A, nor did he deny the events as described by Person A. His written statement offered no explanation in respect of this complaint and Person A's account was unchallenged. 28. We found Person A's evidence to be clear, coherent, and consistent. Person A made a verbal complaint about Mr Thistlethwaite's conduct to her employer. She then put that complaint in writing detailing the communications and attaching screenshots of the messages from Mr Thistlethwaite. She stopped going to work out of fear she would see Mr Thistlethwaite. 29. We accept the Commission's submission that Person A gave oral evidence which was calm and measured. She was open and honest. She made concessions if she could not remember, or if she had a further memory. 30. To the extent that the document titled "11am Meeting [Person A] 5/4/19" purports to suggest that Person A shared a mutual interest with Mr Thistlethwaite, we reject that assertion. We find that these notes are not an accurate representation of the conversation Person A had at the meeting with her employer and which we find occurred on 10 April 2019. 31. We accept the written and oral evidence of Person A as a reliable account of events. These events are set out in particulars 1 and 2 of Complaint Two. We find particulars 1 and 2 (and the sub-particulars) of Complaint Two proven. 32. The Commission's material included the Paramedicine Interim Code of Conduct June 2018, Paramedicine Board of Australia (the Code). This document is admissible evidence of what constitutes appropriate professional conduct National Law, s 41. 33. Clause 1.2 of the Code states that practitioners "must be ethical and trustworthy." Clause 4.2 references respect for colleagues and other practitioners and that good practice involves behaving professionally and courteously to colleagues and other practitioners at all times, including when using social media. 34. The Commission submits that Mr Thistlethwaite's conduct towards Person A was unethical and improper, and it did not reflect the standards contained in the Paramedicine Interim Code of Conduct. 35. We have no difficulty in finding Mr Thistlethwaite's conduct towards Person A to be both unethical and improper. It was persistent, unwelcome, inappropriately personal, and sexually suggestive. It commenced within the first hour on the first day of Person A starting her job as a paramedic. It did not reflect the standards expected of paramedics under the Code. In our view, for Person A to be confronted by something so unwelcome and disempowering at work was an improper violation of the professional respect and courtesy she was entitled to expect from a colleague. 36. We find that Complaint Two of unsatisfactory professional conduct is established. Consideration 1. The issue which flows from the establishment of Complaint One is whether the circumstances of the offences for which Mr Thistlethwaite has been convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practise his profession. Circumstances of the criminal offences 1. In considering whether the circumstances of the criminal offences of which Mr Thistlethwaite has been convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practice paramedicine, we have had regard to the circumstances of the offences contained in the sentencing remarks of King SC DCJ 15 October 2021 at [63]. The relevant remarks are as follows: "… The offender sexually touched each of the victims under the guise of legitimate medical treatment. His offending was sophisticated, well disguised and calculated. During the trial the Crown called three medical doctors and two paramedical experts to establish that there were no genuine medical purposes for the touching of the eight victims. For most counts the offender did not contend that he had a genuine medical purpose for touching the victims as alleged, he did not admit to placing the stethoscope on the breast of any victim more than once; he did not admit to touching the mon pubis region of any victim. For Counts 2, 5 and 9 the offender admitted the touching but denied it was sexual touching. For all other counts the offender disputed the touching ever occurred. The offending escalated over time. He commenced with touching of the breast area for the first victims. Then moving to the touching of the mons pubis area for [Patient D] and [Patient F]. It then culminated with his hands inside the underwear of [Patient G] and the full exposing of the genital area of [Patient H]. he lowered the pants of [Patient F] and [Patient H] without warning. The offender's modus operandi involved him being seated whilst the victims were standing in front of him. This positioning was not medically necessary and contrary to best practice. The positioning resulted in most victims feeling uncomfortable … For several victims the offender rang their private telephone number, or sent unsolicited and unnecessary messages, sometimes of a sexual nature… The offender used medical terminology to establish superiority and authority over the victims and boasted of his professional status to gain their trust, giving him increased opportunity to commit the offences. Each of the victims was feeling unwell and therefore vulnerable. The offender exploited their vulnerability to sexually touch them in circumstances where they were unable to protect themselves and powerless to challenge his treatment. Those who did question the treatment such as [Patient E] and [Patient F], were rebuffed with medical jargon and bogus medical explanations for the touching of their bodies. The offender developed a modus operandi involving repeated examinations of the breast, stomach and/or pubic areas after time intervals. He used this modus operandi to deceive his victims into believing that his conduct was for a genuine medical purpose. … Part of the offender's modus operandi was repeated examinations after time intervals. This allowed the offender to repeatedly offend against any one individual and maximise his sexual gratification. … this type of offending by a paramedic involved calculated deception while treating sick patients, some of them being particularly significantly younger than the offender…a paramedic conducting himself in this fashion makes the offending difficult to detect and difficult to prosecute because the victims are led to believe that the examination is for genuine medical purposes at least until such time as enquiries are made of them as to how they were treated by the offender. It was only when the offender offended against [Patient H] that his offending was detected. [Patient H], who had several years of nursing training, and was therefore aware that the treatment provided to her by Mr Thistlethwaite could not have been genuine medical treatment, hence reporting the matter immediately to her mother, and reporting it to the first police officer she came across when arriving at Central Railway Station from Redfern. The offender would have been aware that in the circumstances of providing paramedical treatment to women who had felt faint, dizzy, nauseated, or had been vomiting on trains, in the manner that he conducted himself, was unlikely to result in his discovery and prosecution. In effect he manipulated his advantage as a trusted health practitioner to exploit each victim's disadvantage by reason of them being unwell and alone at the time of the offending. … The offending can reasonably be described as both serial and predatory sexual offending. …" 1. Other material before us about the circumstances surrounding the offences is the evidence given by the patients about comments of personal or sexual nature that were made by Mr Thistlethwaite towards them during physical examination and/or treatment. These comments were inappropriate and had no clinical basis. 2. For example, Mr Thistlethwaite asked Patients E, F and G if they were sexually active, rather than asking if they could be pregnant. He asked about relationship status. For example, he asked Patient F if she had a boyfriend and asked Patient G if she was married. He told Patient G she was naughty. He asked intrusive questions. He asked Patient G if she ever had had anorexia or bulimia because she was "quite thin" and asked if she had suicidal thoughts. 3. Mr Thistlethwaite commented on the appearance or beauty of the patients. For example, he said to Patient F, "Wow, you have really high hip bones", "How much do you weigh?", and got her to stand up and looked at her bottom. He then said, "Black really is slimming", which was a comment about her backside and her black jeans. He also said to her, "You're so cute", "You're so smart" and "You're adorable". 4. There was sexualised physical patient interaction beyond the charged acts of sexual touching, such as lowering the pants of Patient F and Patient H without warning and displaying of his tattoos. He showed his tattoo to Patient F by unbuttoning his shirt top button and showed photos of his tattoo on his phone which covered his back and bottom to Patient H. He hugged Patient F before she left. 5. Mr Thistlethwaite used medical terminology (and bogus cardiology issues with respect to Patient E) as a sophisticated ruse to give the impression he was touching for a general medical purpose. He used a signature phrase to legitimise the sexual touching of the breast: "The fourth chamber is always the hardest to get to" and "I need to listen to the four chambers of the heart". 6. Patients E and F questioned Mr Thistlethwaite's treatment and he continued regardless. He said to Patient F, "I'm checking for appendicitis and like ovarian cancer. You'd rather know now than later because otherwise you'd be like mad at me". 7. Mr Thistlethwaite offered to take Patients B, F and G home afterwards. He used patients' personal information to make unsolicited phone calls and send text messages of a personal nature which demonstrated a sexual interest. For example, he messaged Patient F that night and sent Patient C sexualised text messages over a period of several weeks. 8. Mr Thistlethwaite told the Tribunal he "had done nothing wrong". He said that that he had lodged an appeal against his convictions. Although he had been told his appeal had merit, he had withdrawn the appeal as he had not been able to secure legal aid to assist him. We note that none of these matters were the subject of corroboration by Mr Thistlethwaite. In any event, they are not relevant to our task of assessing whether the circumstances of the offences of which he has been convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practise. 9. In Mr Thistlethwaite's written statement, he admitted that he had invited a few girls out for a coffee and although this could be seen as unprofessional, he had only ever done this after treatment and with good intent. He stated he never did anything inappropriate or unprofessional during medical investigation or treatment. He asserted that the Crown medical experts agreed that the investigations and treatment by him were correct; nevertheless, he was convicted by a jury and sent to prison. We interpolate here to note that Mr Thistlethwaite's assertion about the evidence of medical experts is not an accurate representation of that evidence which was presented at trial. His assertion is also entirely inconsistent with the comments of King SC DCJ on sentence. 10. The balance of Mr Thistlethwaite's written statement was directed to the impact upon him of his arrest, conviction, and his time in gaol. He referred to the loss of his career, including as an army reservist and SES volunteer, financial cost of the criminal proceedings, and the damage to his personal and professional reputation. He appeared to suggest that witnesses in the Court "or professional Tribunal" had lied. 11. There was no expression of regret or remorse. There was no mention of the impact of his conduct on victims. He displayed no insight into the moral dimension of his conduct. He showed no regard to the professional boundaries of the practitioner and patient relationship. 12. Similarly, Mr Thistlethwaite showed little insight into the impact of his offending during the sentencing proceedings. Referencing the Sentencing Assessment Report (SAR) dated 12 August 2021, King SC DCJ notes Mr Thistlethwaite demonstrated little insight into the impact of his offending, evidenced by his statement that the charges had "completely destroyed his life" and "negatively impacted on his family". He believed that the victims will "now go through life believing they are victims of something that didn't happen consequently developing a negative and poor opinion of men in general". His Honour said there was no evidence of remorse or contrition. Unfit in the public interest 1. The term "public interest" is not defined in the National Law, and although in the context of s 150 proceedings, was the subject of consideration in Pharmacy Council of NSW v Ibrahim [2020] NSWSC 708, in which the Court held that the "public interest" is a broader concept than protection of the health or safety of the public, encompassing wider community interests such as the standards to which human conduct is to be held. 2. The following observations by Harrison AsJ in Pharmacy Council of NSW v Ibrahim at [32] and [35] are instructive: "32. As such, and in the context of ss 3 and 3A of the National Law, the 'public interest' referred to in s 150 includes considerations of maintaining public confidence in the scheme for regulating health practitioners, and the 'competence of practitioners and that practitioners will exhibit traits consistent with the honourable practice of an honourable profession': see [Hanna v Medical Board of NSW [2017] NSWCATOD 27] at [18] … 35. … The public interest is a broader concept, encompassing wider community interests such as the standards to which human conduct is to be held …" 1. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Grygiel (Termination Application) [2020] NSWCATOD 53, the Tribunal considered an application under cl 12 of Schedule 5D of the National Law and s 55(1)(b) of the NCAT Act for an order that the proceedings against a health practitioner be dismissed. Deputy President ADCJ Boland noted at [143] that the words "public interest" are found in various provisions of the National Law including relevantly s 3, in association with a practitioner found guilty of criminal offences (s 149C), in determining whether to take action under s 150, in making an interlocutory order suspending a practitioner's registration (s 165L), in determining what information should be included in the public register (s 226), in requiring Committee members to put the public interest before the interests of a health professional in their determinations (Schedule 2), and obligations on members of National Boards (Schedule 4) and in cl 12 of Schedule 5D. 2. Her Honour considered the authorities on the "public interest" and concluded at [151] that the authorities emphasised a number of matters relevant to the scope and purpose of the legislation, those factors including "the high moral and ethical obligations on practitioners, the need to comply with regulations, and the confidence of the public in those who treat them". Her Honour referred in particular to the comments of Basten JA in Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153 at [91]: "… The purpose of any order made upon a finding that a complaint has been proved, is said to be protective of the interests of the public at large, but more particularly patients or potential patients of the practitioner concerned. However, the public interests include, indirectly, the standing of the medical profession and the maintenance of public confidence in the high standards of medical practitioners. There is also an element of deterrence or, to put it more positively, encouragement to other practitioners to recognise the importance of complying with professional standards and the risks of failing to do so. …" 1. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Limboro [2018] NSWCATOD 117 ("Limboro") at [14], the Tribunal stated: "The National Law does not contain a definition of unfitness to practise in the public interest or unsuitability for registration. These terms, like all others in the Act, are interpreted in light of the objects of the Act in s 3 and the specific objective and guiding principle in the NSW version of the National Law contained in s 3A." 1. Whether a practitioner is unfit in the public interest to practice will require consideration of the nature of the conviction and the circumstances in which the offence was perpetrated. Those circumstances can extend to the factual background and the impact of the conviction on the respondent in terms of any insight, contrition, and remorse: see Health Care Complaints Commission v Karunaratne (No 2) [2018] NSWCATOD 201 at [51]. 2. Similar themes were discussed in Limboro regarding considerations broader than the direct impact upon the practitioner's patients (at [22]): "From the above legislative extracts and interpretive statements it is clear that criminal conduct is a distinct factor when determining suitability to practise which must be assessed in light of a holistic inquiry into suitability. This assessment takes into account the wider context of the practitioner's improper conduct, including their motivation, insight into the harm caused, and attempts at remediation since the events and since any investigation or sanction. All of these considerations, past and present, must inform an assessment of current suitability to practise, within a legislative framework of public protection in which the health and safety of the public are the paramount consideration. Public protection goes beyond specific questions of individual deterrence and the risk of repetition to encompass the broader goal of safety through the setting and maintaining of professional standards, and through this, public confidence in the health professions." 1. Accordingly, public interest contemplates both the direct risk to patients and the indirect risk to the public through damage to their trust in the profession. When health professionals are convicted of serious criminal offences and that criminal conduct occurs whilst performing their professional role and responsibilities, the public's ability to entrust their care to those health professionals is eroded if the practitioner continues to practise. 2. The serious nature of the offences and the length of time over which they occurred, may cause most reasonable members of the public to fear placing themselves, or their loved ones, in the care of a convicted practitioner lacking rehabilitation and insight: Health Care Complaints Commission v Wood [2020] NSWCATOD 60 at [21]. 3. Mr Thistlethwaite's offences were serious, warranting sentences of imprisonment. The offences were not isolated and committed over the course of six months with victims ages ranging from 17-27 years. It was serial and predatory sexual conduct. 4. Several factors emerge from the circumstances of the offences which demonstrate that Mr Thistlethwaite is unfit in the public interest to practise. They are as follows: 1. The conduct of physical examinations or treatment on eight women in small, isolated rooms at train stations without a genuine medical or clinical purpose for the examination or treatment. 2. The nature and extent of the inappropriate sexual touching which escalated over time becoming more brazen, commencing by touching breast areas to touching mon pubis for Patients D and F, to hands inside the underwear of Patient G, and fully exposing Patient H's genitals. 3. The absence of any informed patient consent. 4. The conduct was a departure from paramedic education, training, and practice in that there were unnecessary repeated examinations of the breast, abdomen or pubic area after time intervals, the unnecessary removal or interference with the clothing of the patient, and Mr Thistlethwaite being seated whilst the victims were standing, leaving victims feeling uncomfortable. 5. The ability to commit the offences because of his position as a paramedic. 6. The offences were difficult to detect because the victims were vulnerable and had no medical training except for Patient H who made a complaint to the police, which brought an end to the offending. 7. Mr Thistlethwaite's attitude towards the offending and his ongoing reluctance to admit the offences demonstrates a lack of responsibility and no remorse. His only admission is that he may have acted unprofessionally asking "a few girls out for coffee" but that was "only ever done after treatment and with good intent". 8. Mr Thistlethwaite showed no remorse for his criminal conduct or contrition for the impact upon the victims of his crimes. His expressions of regret were focused on what he saw as his loss. Mr Thistlethwaite's total lack of insight and absence of remorse demonstrates that his prospects of remediation are poor. 1. Mr Thistlethwaite's conduct adversely impacted his profession, and his conduct is incompatible with the personal qualities essential for the practice of paramedicine. It brings the profession into disrepute. 2. Given the matters referred to above, we are satisfied that the circumstances of the offences of which Mr Thistlethwaite has been convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practise paramedicine. 3. The unsatisfactory professional conduct which we found by Mr Thistlethwaite towards a work colleague further strengthens the conclusion we have reached about his unfitness to practice. The principles relevant to the making of protective orders 1. We have found Mr Thistlethwaite guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under s139B(1)(l) of the National Law in that he has engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of paramedicine. This finding does not enliven the powers to suspend or cancel his registration. 2. The powers to suspend or cancel Mr Thistlethwaite's registration are enlivened because we have determined that the circumstances of the offences for which he has been convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practise as a paramedic: National Law, s 149C(1)(c). 3. In determining the appropriate orders, the Tribunal is required in the exercise of functions under the National Law to have regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the national registration and accreditation scheme set out in s 3. Relevantly, of those principles, s 3(2)(a), provides for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered. The paramount consideration is the protection of the health and safety of the public: National Law, s 3A. 4. This determination may only be made by reference to the facts before the Tribunal and by considering what measures are needed to ensure future behaviour of the Practitioner, and others, is shaped in such a way that is consistent with these protective goals: Lee v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 80 at [34]. 5. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [35], Meagher JA (Basten JA and Emmett agreeing) referred to the importance of denunciation of misconduct, in the context of s 3 and s 3A of the National Law as follows: "The objective of protecting the health and safety of the public is not confined to protecting the patients or potential patients of a particular practitioner from the continuing risk of his or her malpractice or incompetence. It includes protecting the public from the similar misconduct or incompetence of other practitioners and upholding public confidence in the standards of the profession. That objective is achieved by setting and maintaining those standards and, where appropriate, by cancelling the registration of practitioners who are not competent or otherwise not fit to practise, including those who have been guilty of serious misconduct. Denouncing such misconduct operates both as a deterrent to the individual concerned, as well as to the general body of practitioners. It also maintains public confidence by signalling that those whose conduct does not meet the required standards will not be permitted to practise." 1. In the light of the findings we have made that Mr Thistlethwaite is unfit in the public interest to practice, we are satisfied that it is appropriate that his registration be cancelled. The setting and maintenance of professional standards and public confidence would be compromised if Mr Thistlethwaite was allowed to continue practising. 2. We conclude that Mr Thistlethwaite should not be able to make any application for review of the cancellation of his registration for a period of five years. In our view, given the gravity of our findings, the upholding of public confidence in the profession requires that his conduct in its entirety be denounced as unacceptable and which a period of five years appropriately reflects. 3. We also found Mr Thistlethwaite guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct for his improper and unethical conduct towards Person A. This finding does not enliven the powers to suspend or cancel his registration. Given the conclusion we have reached about Mr Thistlethwaite's registration, in practical terms there is no protective order that needs to be made to reflect this finding. Prohibition order 1. The Commission seeks a prohibition order against Mr Thistlethwaite on the basis that he poses a substantial risk to the health of members of the public. It seeks that he be prohibited from providing any health services, as defined by s 4 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, until such time as he is re-registered as a paramedic. Mr Thistlethwaite did not oppose the making of such an order. 2. The Tribunal can make a prohibition order if it is satisfied that the respondent poses a substantial risk to the health of members of the public: National Law, s 149C(5). An order of this kind is aligned with the protective purpose of the legislation. 3. Section 4 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 defines "health service". It includes the following services, whether provided as public or private services, as follows-- "(a) medical, hospital, nursing, and midwifery services, (b) dental services, (c) mental health services, (d) pharmaceutical services, (e) ambulance services, (f) community health services, (g) health education services, (h) welfare services necessary to implement any services referred to in paragraphs (a)-(g), (i) services provided in connection with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practices and medical radiation practices, (j) Chinese medicine, chiropractic, occupational therapy, optometry, osteopathy, physiotherapy, podiatry, and psychology services, (j1) optical dispensing, dietitian, massage therapy, naturopathy, acupuncture, speech therapy, audiology, and audiometry services, (k) services provided in other alternative health care fields, (k1) forensic pathology services, (l) a service prescribed by the regulations as a health service for the purposes of this Act." 1. On the evidence before us, we find that Mr Thistlethwaite poses a substantial risk to the health of members of the public if he were to be involved in the provision of any health services. The gravity of his conduct towards vulnerable patients and his complete lack of insight entails an unacceptable risk to the public. 2. Further, a prohibition order ensures that the protective purpose of the cancellation of Mr Thistlethwaite's registration is not significantly undermined. This is because if Mr Thistlethwaite were permitted to provide health services during the period when his registration was cancelled, it would diminish the protective purpose of the cancellation of his registration and undermine confidence held in the profession. 3. We accept the submission of the Commission that Mr Thistlethwaite was able to be employed as a first responder/medic team leader with Safety Australia Group without being a registered paramedic. Without a prohibition order, there may be nothing stopping him from applying for jobs that do not require registration as a paramedic. Non- publication order 1. Mr Thistlethwaite sought a non-publication order in respect of his name. This was opposed by the Commission. 2. Mr Thistlethwaite's reasons for seeking this order were potential media scrutiny and the negative impact on himself and his family members. He claimed to have been affected by the events of the last few years and had been diagnosed with PTSD, severe depression, and anxiety. He said further media attention identifying him whilst in prison would be a danger to his personal safety. He maintained that he was not guilty of any crime. He claimed that his parents were undergoing therapy for PTSD related to the criminal proceedings and the publication of his details could have a further negative impact on them. 3. We do not accept Mr Thistlethwaite's assertion that he has been diagnosed with PTSD, severe depression, and anxiety. He has no evidence to support such a claim. In support of this contention, the only documents he could point to were contained in the material provided by the Commission. They were a letter from Dr Stuart Edser, psychologist and a document titled 'BOIMHC Mental Health 3 step process part 1 Assessment'. This latter document was part of a referral made by Mr Thistlethwaite's general practitioner to Dr Edser. Both documents are dated almost two years ago. The documents simply indicate that Mr Thistlethwaite may need some psychological counselling and might require medication if not settled with counselling. 4. Neither document purports to diagnose Mr Thistlethwaite with the mental conditions he identified. The assessment was completed by a GP and is based on what Mr Thistlethwaite reported. It is purely a self-report and not a diagnosis. The material was prepared at a time when Mr Thistlethwaite had been convicted at trial and was awaiting sentence. It is understandable that these matters would have placed a substantial amount of pressure on him and in those circumstances. It is not surprising that he was depressed and anxious. 5. Mr Thistlethwaite provided no evidence as to his parents' treatment for PTSD. Accordingly, little weight can be attached to this matter, although we accept that there is the potential for them to experience embarrassment by the publication of this decision. 6. The Tribunal's power to restrict disclosures is contained in s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). It provides: 64 Tribunal may restrict disclosures concerning proceedings (1) If the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason, it may (of its own motion or on the application of a party) make any one or more of the following orders— (a) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the name of any person (whether or not a party to proceedings in the Tribunal or a witness summoned by, or appearing before, the Tribunal), (b) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication or broadcast of any report of proceedings in the Tribunal, (c) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication of evidence given before the Tribunal, whether in public or in private, or of matters contained in documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal, (d) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure to some or all of the parties to the proceedings of evidence given before the Tribunal, or of the contents of a document lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal, in relation to the proceedings. (2) The Tribunal cannot make an order under this section that is inconsistent with section 65. (3) The Tribunal may from time to time vary or revoke an order made under subsection (1). (4) For the purposes of this section, a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person. 1. Clause 7(1)(b)(iii) of Schedule 5D to the National Law provides a discretion that the person presiding in proceedings before the Tribunal may, if they think it is appropriate "in the particular circumstances of the case", direct that the name of nominated persons involved in the proceedings, including a registered health practitioner, not be published. 2. In Kostov v Ecclesia Housing Limited (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 221, an Appeal Panel of the Tribunal said (at [9]-[11]): "9. However section 64 must be read in context of the overall requirement that the proceedings of this Tribunal be conducted in public. Section 49 of the Act provides: 49 Hearings to be open to public (1) A hearing by the Tribunal is to be open to the public unless the Tribunal orders otherwise. (2) The Tribunal may (of its own motion or on the application of a party) order that a hearing be conducted wholly or partly in private if it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason. 10. In New South Wales there is a system of open justice. From time to time reports of decisions of courts and tribunals reveal circumstances pertaining to parties in proceedings of a personal nature, and some of which deal with a whole range of difficult circumstances. Whilst it is unfortunate that details of this kind are revealed in this way, this is a necessary concomitant of open justice. 11. There are many cases in this Tribunal where non-publication orders have been made under section 64 of the Act, but they are principally directed to ensuring confidentiality with respect to disciplinary proceedings taken against health practitioners or legal practitioners and concern the names and details of persons who are their patients or clients as well as the families of those patients and clients. It is rare indeed that the name of a practitioner against whom disciplinary proceedings are taken will be suppressed. See for example, Health Care Complaint Commission v Vo [2014] NSWCATOD 127. Of course, the circumstances of such proceedings are significantly different from those which apply to these proceedings." 1. Similarly, s 165K of the National Law contemplates that proceedings before NCAT brought under the National Law are open to the public unless otherwise ordered. 2. The starting point is that disclosure of the name of a person who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings is expected to be made, consistent with the concept of open justice, unless there is a compelling reason for a non-publication order to be made in relation to that person's name. The risk of a negative emotional reaction to disclosure, such as embarrassment or humiliation, would not be an adequate reason for a non-publication order The risk of reasonably foreseeable negative impacts upon the Respondent's family from disclosure, such as embarrassment and negative social impacts, would not, by themselves, be sufficient reason to make a non-disclosure order: Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (No 2) [2021] NSWCATOD 84 at [44]-[46]. 3. The Commission submitted that the reasons advanced by Mr Thistlethwaite do not support the making of a non-publication order. The Commission points out that in proceedings under the National Law reputational damage to a heath practitioner is generally not considered sufficient to displace the presumption in favour of open justice, citing in support Health Care Complaints Commission v Vo [2014] NSWCATOD 127. It submitted that "something special, exceptional, or out of the ordinary", must be established before the Tribunal can made a non-publication order. 4. We accept the Commission's submission that there is nothing before us to indicate any serious or exceptional circumstances which would warrant the suppression of Mr Thistlethwaite's name. Nor are we persuaded that his claim that his personal safety could be in danger if there were to be future media attention identifying him whilst he is in prison amounts to an exceptional circumstance. 5. The public is entitled to know whether a practitioner has been the subject of disciplinary findings and orders. Other members of the profession have an interest in knowing whether a colleague has been disciplined, and why. Decisions also provide a marker of what is unacceptable to other members of the profession. 6. While the object of disciplinary proceedings is not intended to be punitive to the practitioner, but protective of the public, in our view, the protective nature of the jurisdiction outweighs any adverse consequences which may be suffered by Mr Thistlethwaite by the publication of his name. We are not satisfied that the risk of any negative impacts upon Mr Thistlethwaite or his family from disclosure of his name are a sufficient reason to make a non-disclosure order. In contrast, we have found that because of his conduct Mr Thistlethwaite presents a substantial risk to the health of members of the public. The public is entitled to know that. Costs 1. The Tribunal has the power to award costs as specified in the National Law, clause 13 of Schedule 5D. 2. The principles relevant to the exercise of discretion in awarding costs were the subject of discussion in the High Court of Australia in Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25. The High Court stressed that the awarding of costs is a discretionary matter, but the discretion must be exercised judicially by reference to relevant considerations. Their Honours further explained the general rule that costs follow the event reflects the position that a successful party should be compensated for the expenses it has incurred and is not intended to be punitive. These established principles are also relevant to professional disciplinary proceedings: see Health Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342. 3. The Commission was successful in proving all the particulars in the two individual complaints advanced by it. Each complaint was substantiated. It was successful in proving Mr Thistlethwaite's unfitness in the public interest to practise. It was successful in obtaining orders for cancellation of registration and prohibition. 4. There is no evidence of any disentitling conduct by the Commission. Accordingly, a costs order will be made in its favour. Orders 1. Under s 149C(1)(c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), the registration of the Respondent is cancelled. 2. Under s 149C(7) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), a non-review period of 5 years is imposed. 3. Under s 149C(5) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), the Respondent is prohibited from providing a health service as defined by s 4 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW). 4. Under clause 13 of Schedule 5D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), the Respondent is to pay the Applicant's costs as agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW). 5. The Respondent's application for a non-publication order of his name is refused. 6. Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), an order is made prohibiting the publication or disclosure of the names of Patients A – H and the name of Person A listed in the Schedule attached to the Complaint. Amendments 8 August 2023 – Coversheet and Orders amended – Correct Order 1 to delete reference to Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), s 149C(1)(d). I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar Amendments 09 August 2023 - Coversheet and Orders amended – Correct Order 1 to delete reference to Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), s 149C(1)(d). DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 09 August 2023