Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v GJU [2024] NSWCATOD 160 Hearing dates: 28 August 2024 Date of orders: 28 August 2024 Decision date: 01 October 2024 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: R L Bailey, Senior Member S Kelly, Senior Member W Hughes, Senior Member M Ficarra, General Member Decision: (1) Pursuant to clause 7 of Schedule 5D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) 2009, the name and address of the practitioner is not to be published. This does not prevent the applicant from communicating those details to the following authorities only: (a) AHPRA (b) The Paramedicine Council of NSW (c) NSW Ambulance (d) The Pharmaceutical Regulatory Unit (2) Pursuant to section 149C(4)(a) of the National Law, if the practitioner were still registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration, pursuant to section 149C(1)(c) of the National Law, because the circumstances of the offences render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practice paramedicine. (3) Pursuant to section 149C(4)(b) of the National Law, the practitioner is disqualified from being registered in the health profession for a period of four years from the date of this order; (4) Pursuant to section 149C(1)(c) of the National Law, the National Board is required to record the fact that if the practitioner were still registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration, in the National Register kept by the Board; (5) Costs are to be awarded to the applicant, as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: Occupational Division – paramedicine – non-publication order – protective, not punitive - whether unfit in the public interests to practice – convicted of a criminal offence – no longer registered – suicidal ideation - the Tribunal would have cancelled the registration – disqualification four years – costs submissions sought Legislation Cited: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Cases Cited: Health Care Complaints Commission v Astor-Finn [2016] NSWCATOD 7 at 32 GKN v Medical Council of NSW [2024] NSWCATOD 87 at [135] (Prakash v HCCC [2006] NSW CA 153 at [91] HCCC v Do [2014] NSW CA 307 at [35] HCCC v Litchfield [1997] NSW SC 297 (1997) 41 NSW LR 630 at 638 HCCC v Turner [2016] NSW CADOD 163 at [67] HCCC v FLJ [2023] NSW CATOD 7 at [93] HCCC v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA342 at [42]-[46] Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72 at [40] Puriv v Medical Council of New South Wales (No 2) [2024) NSWCATOD 122 at [13] HCCC v Muthukrishna (No 2) [2024]NSWCATOD142 at [10] Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) GJU (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) Respondent (self-represented) File Number(s): 2024/00191581 Publication restriction: Pursuant to section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication of the name of person A is prohibited. 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. The provision of these reasons (with persons identified) is not intended to be a publication or broadcasting of an official report of the proceedings. REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1. On 23 May 2024, the Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission) made a complaint and applied for disciplinary findings and orders in relation to a former paramedic (the practitioner). 2. This Inquiry concerns the complaint made by the Commission, pursuant to s145D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (the National Law) 3. The practitioner is 52 years old. For 28 years, he was a paramedic, registered in 2018. Most recently, he worked as Station Manager and Acting Inspector in a suburb of Sydney. The practitioner's employment was suspended on 21 June 2022. 4. The complaint sets out that, on 13 February 2023, the practitioner was convicted of the following offences: 1. one count of sexually touch person A without consent contrary to s61KC(a) of the Crimes Act 1900; 2. one count of larceny contrary to s117 of the Crimes Act 1900; and 3. one count of breaching Apprehended Violence Order contrary to s14(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. 1. The Commission seeks: 1. an order under s149C(4)(a) of the National Law that if the practitioner was still registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration (pursuant to s149C(1)(c) of the National Law because the circumstances of the offences render the practitioner unfit in the public interests of practice paramedicine; 2. an order under s149C(4)(b) of the National Law that he is disqualified from being registered in a health profession for four years; 3. an order under s149C(4)(c) of the National Law that the National Board is required to record the fact that if the practitioner was still registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration in the National Register kept by the Board; 4. an order under clause 13 of Schedule 5D of the National Law that the practitioner pay the Commission's costs as agreed or assessed. 1. For the following reasons, we have decided to make the orders one, two, three, and four (above). We decided to invite the parties to provide written submissions in relation to costs. We propose to determine the costs application on the papers. The Hearing 1. The matter was conducted as a combined stage one and stage two proceeding, on 28 August 2024. 2. Ms Bayley attended the hearing in person and represented the applicant, together with Ms Clucas. 3. The practitioner did not appear. Legal Framework 1. Section 144(a) of the National Law provides that the following complaints may be made about a registered health practitioner: 1. a complaint the practitioner has, either in this jurisdiction or elsewhere, being convicted of or made the subject of a criminal finding for an offence; 2. a complaint the practitioner has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct; 3. a complaint the practitioner is not competent to the practice the practitioner's profession; 4. a complaint the practitioner has an impairment; 5. a complaint the practitioner is otherwise not suitable to hold registration in the practitioner's profession". 1. The Tribunal must determine three things: 1. whether the complaint is proven; 2. if proven, whether protective orders should be made; and 3. whether to make a costs order. 1. The objective of the National Law is set out in s3B to be "the protection of the health and safety of the public must be paramount consideration". 2. Pursuant to s145D of the National Law, the Commission is obliged to refer the complaint to the Tribunal, if it has formed the opinion that, the complaint, if substantiated, would provide grounds for the suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration. 3. The Tribunal's disciplinary powers are set out in subdivision 6 of the National Law. Section 149 provides that the Tribunal may exercise any power conferred on it by this subdivision in relation to a registered health practitioner…if: 1. it finds a subject matter of a complaint against the practitioner or student to have been proved; or 2. the practitioner or student admits to it in writing to the Tribunal. 1. Section 149C(4) provides that if the practitioner is no longer registered the Tribunal may decide that, if the person were still registered, the Tribunal would have suspended or cancelled the practitioner's registration, and decide that the practitioner is disqualified from being registered for a specified period and require the National Board with which the person was registered to record the fact that the Tribunal would have suspended or cancelled the person's registration in the National Register kept by the Board. Agreed facts 1. It is not contested that, as at May 2022, the practitioner had been a paramedic for approximately 27 years and had been working as a station officer (Acting Inspector) for approximately five years. 2. It is also not contested that the practitioner was obliged to comply with the Paramedicine Board Code of Conduct, the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008, the NSW Ambulance Policies and Procedures including the Medications Management Policy. 3. It is also not contested that the practitioner was convicted of the offences referred to in the complaint. Documents and Exhibits 1. The Commission tendered the following material: 1. Exhibit A - an email from the practitioner, dated 29 May 2024, to Ms Azzopardi and Mr Yousif (NSW), stating that he is unable to participate in the proceedings; 2. Exhibit B – an email from Ms Azzopardi, dated 21 August 2024, to Ms Clukis, Solicitor for the Commission, which included as part of the email trail an email from the practitioner earlier that day, requesting the continuation of the non-publication order in relation to his identity. This document attached medical reports in support of that request; 3. Exhibit C – is 658 pages of material titled 'Health Care Complaints Commission's documents'; 4. Exhibit D – is the AHPRA evidentiary certificate; 1. We also considered the following policies: 1. Paramedicine Board Code of Conduct; 2. Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008; 3. NSW Ambulance Policies and Procedures; and 4. Medications Management Policy. Non-attendance of the respondent 1. The practitioner did not attend the hearing. 2. On 20 November 2023, the practitioner provided written submissions to the Commission. In doing so, he said: "I will not be attending to argue against the decision to cancel my registration as I believe this to be done already. I have paid for this incident and wish to be left alone so I can eventually attempt to move forward in some way". 3. On 28 May 2024, the practitioner received the Commission's application to the Tribunal and complaint. 4. On 29 May 2024, and again on 4 July 2024, the practitioner emailed the Commission to advise that he did not intend to participate in the hearing. 5. He stated that: "This ongoing situation is causing me to stress and a high level of anxiety". 6. The practitioner stated that he has no intention to apply for his registration to be reinstated. 7. Based on these documents, we are satisfied that: 1. the practitioner is aware of the hearing and the orders being sought; 2. the hearing could proceed in his absence; 3. the practitioner has had the opportunity to present submissions to the Commission which are available to the Tribunal; 4. the practitioner does not oppose the orders sought. 1. The possible exception to the above is the application for costs. 2. Therefore, we decided that it was in the interests of fairness and consistent with the guiding principles of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the CAT Act) to proceed with the hearing in the practitioner's absence. Non-publication orders 1. On 7 June 2024, the Tribunal made a non-publication order to protect the identity of person A. That order remains in force. 2. On the same date, the Tribunal made an interim non-publication order to protect the identity of the practitioner. That order was amended on 7 August 2024. The Tribunal must determine whether to make a final non-publication order to protect the identity of the practitioner. 3. The Commission neither consents nor opposes a non-publication order. 4. Section 64 of the CAT Act gives the Tribunal the power to confirm the interim non-publication order, if it is desirable to do so (s64(1) CAT Act). 5. Clause 7(1) of Schedule 5D of the National Law also gives the Tribunal power to make a non-publication order, if it thinks it appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case. 6. We considered the Commission's submissions which outline the factors in favour of and against making a non-publication order. In summary, the factors against making a non-publication order include the requirement to uphold the principles of open justice, which means that hearings are generally conducted in public and the reasons published. They also include the interests that the public has in being able to know whether a practitioner has been charged with a disciplinary offence and the outcome of any proceedings. 7. The Commission submitted that it is for the practitioner to provide evidence in support of a non-publication order application; Health Care Complaints Commission v Astor-Finn [2016] NSWCATOD 73 at 32 8. In this case, there is uncontested evidence that the practitioner attempted suicide on 15 May 2022 and was subsequently admitted to hospital for treatment of his mental illness. He continued to report suicidal ideation to his Psychiatrist, Dr Furst, as reported in Dr Furst's report, dated 24 August 2022 (page 490). 9. There is also uncontested evidence that the practitioner has continued to see his Psychiatrist and Psychologist on a regular basis for ongoing treatment. 10. On 29 May 2024, the practitioner wrote to the Commission that he has been diagnosed with complex PTSD, ongoing suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety disorder. He wrote: "In consultation with my doctors, it is agreed that I am not fit to partake in these proceedings. I request that the findings and outcome of this matter be treated as confidential due to my diagnosis's (sic)". 11. The practitioner wrote to the Commission again on 4 July 2024 that: "This ongoing situation is causing me distress and a high level of anxiety". 12. On 24 August 2024, the practitioner's Psychologist, Ms Randall, wrote that the practitioner's mental health had significantly deteriorated in recent times, as a result of discussing the hearing. She expressed her opinion that the interim non-publication order should be confirmed. 13. This opinion was corroborated by the practitioner's General Practitioner, Dr Lam, by way of letter, dated 21 August 2024, who wrote: "I believe it is vital to continue the interim non-publication order to protect him from further distress, which will worsen his depression'. 14. The Commission submitted, correctly in our view, that the publication of the decision would still serve to maintain the standards of the profession and enable the Commission to communicate with the Council, AHPRA, and the complainant in relation to the outcome of the proceedings, even if the non-publication order were confirmed. 15. The Commission submitted that if the Tribunal considered is it appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case to make a non-publication order, it should do so pursuant to clause 7 of Schedule 5D of the National Law, because the Tribunal has previously expressed the view that this is the appropriate power to exercise, once the Tribunal panel has been constituted (GKN v Medical Council of NSW [2024] NSW Catod 87 at [135]). 16. In GKN v Medical Council of NSW, Her Honour Seiden DCJ carefully considered the Tribunal's source of power to make a non-disclosure and non-publication order. She noted the competing provisions of s64 of the NCAT Act and those in clause 7 of Schedule 5D of the National Law. 17. Her Honour found that s35 of the NCAT Act applies, which provides that each of the provisions of this part is subject to enabling legislation and the procedural rules. She found that there was no doubt in that matter, as there is no doubt in this matter, that the enabling legislation is the National Law. Her Honour held that s64 of the NCAT Act was, therefore, subject to the National Law, which relevantly contained clause 7. She also held that the National Law is the paramount provision, and that s64 of the NCAT Act is subordinate. 18. Her Honour determined that "where the Tribunal is considering a non-disclosure and non-publication order where the panel is constituted, the person presiding would exercise the power under clause 7 and not s64 (which is ousted at that point)". [at 135] 19. In the circumstances, we considered it appropriate that the name of the practitioner and the name of person A are not to be published. Therefore, we decided to make a non-publication order, pursuant to clause 7 of Schedule 5D of the National Law. 20. However, we determined that this order should not prevent the Commission from communicating those details to the following authorities only: 1. AHPRA; 2. The Paramedicine Council of NSW; 3. NSW Ambulance; 4. The Pharmaceutical Regulatory Unit. Stage One- The Complaint 1. The complaint is brought under s 144 (a) of the National Law. The complainant submits that the practitioner was convicted of the following offences: 1. one count of sexually touch person A without consent contrary to s61KC(a) of the Crimes Act 1900; 2. one count of larceny contrary to s117 of the Crimes Act 1900; and 3. one count of breaching Apprehended Violence Order contrary to s14(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. Relevant Background 1. The Commission provided a summary of the evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the offences set out in Exhibit C, in its submissions, dated 26 August 2024. The practitioner did not submit any documentation in reply to the material in the Health Care Complaints Commission document bundle. 2. The evidence demonstrates that in 2021 the practitioner was an Acting Inspector for NSW Ambulance. The father of his victim (who is referred to in these Reasons for Decision as Person A) was, at that time, also a registered paramedic working at the practitioner's station. The practitioner knew Person A's father well and was acquainted with Person A and her family. Person A's father had a heart attack on 16 April 2021. Whilst he was in hospital, the practitioner visited him. Person A's father died on 2 May 2021. 3. The practitioner was the family liaison officer. His role was to provide welfare and support to Person A's family and assist them with funeral arrangements. In this role, his acquaintance with Person A's family developed. 4. On 7 May 2021, the practitioner drove Person A and her family to the funeral. The practitioner visited Person A's home at some stage thereafter. 5. In May 2022, the practitioner was 52 years old. Person A was 17 years old and was still a high school student. She was also an Ambulance cadet. 6. The evidence demonstrates that Person A was very upset, at that time, which was approaching the anniversary of her father's death, and suffering from grief. The evidence demonstrates that she had previously attempted suicide and was prescribed medication to treat anxiety. At page 64 of her statement, Person A attested that she felt she could trust the practitioner, because he was her late father's boss and had befriended her family. She knew his nickname. Person A had known the practitioner for a long time and he had provided her and her family with comfort and support since the death of her late father. 7. On 11 May 2022, Person A's sister was admitted to the psychiatric emergency care centre as a result of a suicide attempt. Person A attended the hospital to visit her sister. The practitioner approached Person A, whilst she was visiting her sister and was visibly upset. 8. It is alleged that, on occasion, the practitioner exchanged mobile telephone numbers with Person A and told her to call him if she ever needed anything. Later that day, the practitioner told the Associate Director of Clinical Operations that he had seen Person A and her mother at the hospital. He explained that Person A's sister had attempted suicide and asked whether NSW Ambulance could provide further support to the family. It is alleged that the Associate Director of Clinical Operations suggested that the practitioner contact the staff psychologist or employee assistance program but cautioned him (not to get too close to the family). Later that night, the practitioner sent a text message to Person A: "Okay, call or text me if you need anything. I will touch base with you from time to time. I hope your (sic) okay". 9. Between 12 and 14 May 2022, the practitioner and Person A exchanged several text messages which included: 1. Practitioner – "Hey how you going today are you feeling a little better? I heard that [Person A's sister] is doing okay today". 2. Person A – "Yes I fuckin hate CAMHS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services]. They called me and I said I was suicidal and now they're gonna call my mum". 3. Practitioner – "Is your mum at the hospital and your (sic) at home? Did they call your mum yet? What are they doing?" 4. Person A – "We're both at the hospital they already called her nothing's happening". 5. Practitioner – "How you going?" 6. Person A – "I'm okay I just want to skip through this part but I feel really tempted to OD [overdose]". 7. Practitioner – "Don't do anything that will cause you dramas. You need to be there for your sister. Don't you agree?? Don't you agree?? Have you been able to speak with [Person A's sister] yet?" 8. Person A – "She isn't really talking. I don't know. I mean she did it. Why would it matter if I did". 9. Practitioner – "I matter. It matters to those who love you!! It would hurt them". 10. Person A – "I don't care anymore. I've been going on for so long and for what". 11. Practitioner – "There is light at the end of the tunnel, I know you can't see it but it is there. You just need to get some help working through this time". 12. Person A - "Yeh but no one's helping". 13. Practitioner – "What do you think I could do to help you?" 14. Person A – "Just keep checking in. I asked to see my psych tomorrow but I don't know if she can". 15. Practitioner – "Who were you seeing who you said just had a baby? Was that your psych or counsellor??" 16. Person A – "Psychiatrist but I'll try and see my psychologist tomorrow. Cohmet [Community Mental Health Emergency Team] told my mum they'd call me but it's this bitch called…and she's such a turd". 17. Practitioner – "Turd? That's funny". 18. Person A – "Yeh she's known me for two years and she has never once helped IDK [I don't know] why she gets paid. Are u working?" 19. Practitioner – "Yes, where are you? I'm at [the hospital]. Are you here". 20. Person A – "[Person A's sister]'s In PECC [Psychiatric Emergency Care Centre]. Yes I'm here". Offence 1 - Sexually touch person A without consent 1. On Saturday, 14 May 2022, Person A went to a fancy dress party at a friend's house. She was dressed as Britney Spears, wearing a grey cardigan, white collared button up shirt, tied at the front, a short black skirt, dark grey tight shorts underneath the skirt, and long black knee-length socks. Her hair was tied in two school-girl ponytails. During the party, Person A consumed several alcoholic drinks and became intoxicated. 2. On the same evening, the practitioner started his rostered shift, with a trainee paramedic, at 6:45 pm in an Ambulance. At 7:45 pm, the practitioner and his colleague transported a 71 year old female patient to the hospital in the Ambulance. 3. It appears that Person A telephoned the practitioner at approximately 8:00 pm. The fact that there are slightly different accounts of the precise time is not material. The practitioner did not answer. However, he later sent Person A a message to tell her that he would call her in 10 minutes. The practitioner then telephoned Person A, who was crying and distressed. 4. Person A's friend picked up the phone and spoke to the practitioner instead. She told the practitioner words to the effect of: "She's just really drunk". The practitioner then offered to pick up Person A and take her home to her mother in the Ambulance. Person A's friend provided the address of the party to the practitioner by text message. 5. The practitioner then informed his colleague, who was a trainee paramedic, that he was leaving the hospital because a family friend's daughter needed his help and that he would not be away for long. 6. At approximately 8:07 pm, the practitioner drove the Ambulance from the hospital, leaving the trainee paramedic at the hospital. At 8:10 pm, the practitioner had a radio call with the Sydney Control Centre in which he advised the call centre: "I've just had a family member of a paramedic call me in a bit of distress. I just need to go and pick her up and take her home. I can't go anywhere anyway, so just be aware I'm driving to [suburb] and I'll take her home". 7. At approximately 8:21 pm, the practitioner arrived at the party in the ambulance. He picked Person A up from the floor and assisted her to walk to the ambulance. Person A fell to the ground twice, including when she opened the ambulance door. The Commission asserts it would have been "completely clear to the practitioner that Person A was heavily intoxicated, she was unsteady on her feet". Despite pleading guilty, the practitioner provided a different version of events to the Police about offences 1 and 3. The practitioner expressed the view that she was not as intoxicated as alleged but was 'attention seeking'. 8. The practitioner placed Person A into the rear of the ambulance and buckled her into a rear facing upright chair. He then shut the door and started driving. Person A was crying. The practitioner said words to the effect: "What am I gonna do with you now, because you're so drunk, how am I gonna take you home to your mum like this?" 9. Person A was hyperventilating. The practitioner said words to the effect: "Slow your breathing down" and told her that he was going to "just drive around the corner and pull over". The practitioner drove the ambulance into an industrial area and pulled over the ambulance. Between 8:28-8:20 pm and 8:43-8:48 pm, the practitioner stopped the ambulance in this area. The Commission asserts that he did so with a plan to touch her in a sexual way. The practitioner denies that. 10. In any event, it is not contested that the practitioner did climb into the back of the ambulance and sat in front of Person A who was upset, crying and hyperventilating. He used his stethoscope to check her breathing. 11. Person A had a mixture of saliva and mucus on her face and top. The practitioner said words to the effect of: "You've got stuff all over you". The practitioner also allegedly noted that Person A's top was covered in glitter. 12. He then used a ready wipe to wipe across Person A's breasts. The Commission asserts that the practitioner did this as a pretext to touch her breasts in a sexual fashion, because there was no other reason to remove glitter from her top. 13. The practitioner wiped across the top of Person A's breasts, under her collarbone and then her chest. He continued to wipe under her bra, touching her breasts, with the wipe in his hand. He also wiped material from her inner thigh. It is alleged that he pointed at self-harm scars on Person A's leg and said words to the effect: "Why are you cutting yourself?" or similar. 14. He then wiped Person A's forehead and said: "You have got something on your forehead" before kissing her on the lips. Person A told the Police that she felt the coarseness of his facial stubble across her face. The practitioner denies kissing Person A on the lips but conceded kissing her on the cheek. 15. The practitioner allegedly said: "Okay, let's get you home now". He then rang Person A's mother to tell her that he was driving Person A home. He arrived at Person A's house at 8:57 pm. He carried her from the ambulance into her home. He carried her into her bedroom and laid her on the bed. At that time, he kissed Person A's forehead. He spoke to Person A's mother who thanked him for taking care of her daughter. 16. At around 9:25-9:28 pm, he drove the ambulance back to the hospital. While he was absent, the trainee paramedic had obtained assistance from another paramedic to help unload the 71 year old female patient. 17. The statement of the trainee paramedic reveals that the practitioner told him that he had picked up Person A from the party, she sat in the rear seat, was intoxicated, and was wearing a short skirt. 18. Person A then telephoned a male friend and told him what had occurred. The friend later provided a statement to the Police that said that Person A told him "I just came back from a party and my friend dropped me off and he touched me…he kissed me…and drove me home, carried me inside and put me to bed". 19. Person A also told a female friend: "I'd called my dad's friend and he kept touching me". 20. Person A's male friend then drove Person A to the hospital. During the drive, she told her friend: "He took me in the ambulance, and we drove for a couple of minutes, he was cleaning glitter off my chest, he took off my shirt and exposed my breasts to take the glitter off". 21. While Person A was on route to the hospital, her mother contacted the practitioner to tell him that Person A was on her way to the hospital, due to a mental health episode. She asked the practitioner to support Person A. 22. When Person A was being triaged at the hospital, the practitioner was standing nearby. Person A did not say anything to the triage nurse, whilst he was standing so close. According to the statement of her male friend, she did not want to get the practitioner into trouble. 23. However, once Person A was in a private room, she told nursing staff words to the effect of: "I was at a party and I got really drunk so I called my dad's friend to come and pick me up and he was touching my boobs…in the back of an ambulance". She disclosed to the Nursing Unit Manager that she had been sexually assaulted and that the offender was a paramedic. The Nursing Unit Manager then asked Person A: "Are they here now?" Person A told her "Yes". The hospital staff then contacted the Police. 24. At approximately 3:00 am on Sunday, 15 May 2022, the Police attended the hospital and noticed the practitioner standing near the triage area. After speaking to nursing staff, the Nursing Unit Manager led the Police to a private room where Person A and her male friend were waiting. The Police again noticed the practitioner standing a couple of metres away from the room entrance. Person A told the Police that she did not want to report the incident and did not want to get the offender into trouble. She declined to make a formal statement, but agreed to speak with a sexual assault counsellor. While Person A was checking her mobile phone, the Police saw the practitioner's nickname on her call log. 25. Sometime after 6:00 am the Police again interviewed Person A. She repeated that she did not wish to report the incident, because she did not want the practitioner to get into trouble. She blamed herself for calling him to pick her up from the party. 26. The practitioner's night shift ended at 7:00 am and he left the station. He was not rostered again for the next five days. 27. The practitioner texted Person A: "Hey I missed your call earlier. Are you awake. I hope you're doing okay this morning. Sorry if I was a bit cranky last night but everyone is really concerned about you and drinking can make you do silly things. Things that won't make you feel better, they make you feel much worse. I know you weren't really wasted but even being tipsy isn't always helpful for you. Give me a call or text me if you want to chat". 28. At around 1:00 pm, the practitioner received a phone call from Person A. It was during this time the practitioner became aware that the incident would be reported to the Police. Offence 2 – Larceny 1. It is not contested that the following events occurred. 2. Having become aware that Person A had reported the events of the previous evening to the Police, and whilst still off duty, the practitioner accessed the station by entering a key code and spoke to paramedics at the station. One paramedic asked him what he was doing there, and he responded with words to the effect that he was: "Just grabbing some things". Two other paramedics spoke to the practitioner and asked him if anything was wrong. He then accessed the storeroom, by entering another key code. 3. At approximately 2:31 pm, the practitioner accessed the safe by entering a SyberKey, staff link ID and PIN. He removed medications from the safe. Because he was not on duty, he was not authorised to do so. 4. He misappropriated the following medications from the safe at his workplace: 1. five Morphine ampoules (10mg/1mL); 2. two Fentanyl spray solution (40mcg/1.5mL); 3. two Methoxyflurane "green whistle" inhalers (3mL) 4. five Midazolam ampoules (FMG/1mL); and 5. two Ketamine vials (200mg/2mL). 1. He closed the safe at approximately 2:34 pm. 2. The practitioner did not make any entry in the Ketamine register, but made false entries in the restricted medications register as follows: 1. he made a false entry in the Morphine register, purporting to sign out the medication at 11:10 am, with an illegible name, signature and employee number; 2. he made a false entry in the Methoxyflurane register purporting to sign out the medication at 11:10 am with an illegible name, signature and employee number; 3. he made a false entry in the Fentanyl register purporting to sign out the medication at 11:10 am with an illegible name, signature and employee number. 1. A paramedic on a later shift noticed that the Ketamine physical balance did not match the Ketamine written balance in the restricted medications register and made a correction entry. As a result of the practitioner's false entries, the other paramedic did not notice that the other medications had been stolen at that time. 2. At 5:45 pm, the practitioner's colleagues became concerned about his whereabouts and contacted him. The practitioner spoke to DOM Yousif. He confessed that he had the restricted drugs and intended to suicide. He said words to the effect of: "I fucked up at work…I've done something silly at work….I fucked up big time at work [Person A] contacted me. She was emotionally upset. I went to pick her up to take her home…I picked her up, she was quite upset. I put her in the back of the ambulance … and started to drive her home. She started to get really upset and I had to pull over. I got in the back, was trying to calm her down, there was glitter on her and I started to wipe it off her. During that time a kiss was exchanged and I touched her breasts…She would have reported it…[Person A] contacted me on the morning. She was yelling at me and saying: 'How could you do this?'. [The practitioner's wife] will never forgive me, the girl is 17 years old, the same as my daughter…I'm going to be known as a paedophile. I'm not gonna come back and I'm going to kill myself. I have planned it…". 3. At 6:15 pm, the practitioner texted the Acting Director of Clinical Operations to say: "I'm so sorry. I have tarnished the whole organisation and it's not okay". 4. At 7:30 pm the practitioner's false entries were discovered. 5. At 8:45 pm, DOM Yousif telephoned the practitioner who told him that he had the drip running with Morphine and Midazolam in it. 6. At around 8:45 pm, the Police located the practitioner's mobile phone in the vicinity of a Bunnings car park in a suburb far to the north of Sydney. Paramedics attended the car park at 8:47 pm. The practitioner had set up a drip in his car and was threatening suicide. He had self-cannulated and had allegedly administered an unknown amount of the medications. He was found in the car with the five empty vials of Midazolam and five empty vials of Morphine. The evidence does not reveal whether the practitioner had, in fact, self-administered those drugs. The other medications were still sealed. The practitioner was transported to hospital at 9:15 pm and admitted for mental health assessment and treatment. He was transferred to a clinic facility for mental health treatment on 24 May 2022. 7. The practitioner has provided inconsistent accounts of the events involving Person A. On 25 May 2022, the practitioner was assessed by Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Deen. Her report reveals that the practitioner provided the history that he had agreed to pick up Person A while she was under the influence of alcohol. He told Dr Deen that he helped Person A clean up the vomit stains on her clothes and hands, dropped her home, and that nothing inappropriate had happened. 8. On 25 May 2022, the practitioner notified AHPRA that he had stolen the medications from the safe at his workplace on 15 May 2022 in order to self-harm. He did not mention the incident with Person A. 9. On 30 May 2022, NSW Ambulance notified the Pharmaceutical Services Board about the stolen medications. The Pharmaceutical Services Board ordered that the practitioner may not possess, supply, or administer Schedule 4D drugs, Methoxyflurane, or Schedule 8 drugs. 10. The practitioner attended the Police Station on 2 June 2022 and was arrested and cautioned. He declined to be interviewed by Police. He was initially charged with two counts of sexually touching another person without consent. One charge was later withdrawn. He was also charged with two counts of common assault contrary to s61 of the Crimes Act 1900, but both counts were later withdrawn. 11. Additionally, he was charged with one count of larceny contrary to s117 of the Crimes Act 1900, which related to the stealing of the restricted prescribed medications, and five counts of possessing or attempting to possess restricted substances, contrary to s16(1) of Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966. The latter counts were later admitted and taken into account on sentencing. 12. On 6 June 2022, NSW Ambulance notified AHPRA of the incident with Person A and the stolen medications. 13. On 20 June 2022, the practitioner agreed to interim conditions being placed on his registration. The next day, his Solicitor was served with a Notice of Misconduct Investigation which outlined his alleged misconduct, suspended his employment with pay, and invited him to seek welfare support. It also directed him not to discuss the matter with potential witnesses in order to avoid potential contamination of the evidence and breaches of confidentiality. 14. On 23 June 2022, the practitioner indicated he would plead not guilty to the charges. However, once the charges were reduced in number, he eventually pleaded guilty. Offence 3 - breaching Apprehended Violence Order 1. On 24 June 2022, the practitioner attended the Local Court when an Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO) was made against him to protect Person A for two years. The practitioner was present in Court when the orders were made by consent. The conditions of the APVO were explained and understood by the practitioner. He was, therefore, aware that any breach of the orders was an offence and could lead to a term of imprisonment or a hefty fine. Specifically, the orders stated: "You must not approach [Person A] or contact her in any way, unless the contact is through a Lawyer. For example: You must not approach or contact [Person A] in person or through electronic communication [for example by phone, text messages, emails or Facebook or other social media]. If [Person A] contacts you and you reply, no matter how many times she contacts you or the reason for doing it, you will be breaching this order….If you breach this order: you could go to prison for up to two years and be fined up to $5,500.00. You could be charged with other criminal offences [for example assault or intimidation] as well as the breach of this order. If convicted of these offences, you could receive a higher penalty such as more time in prison." 1. On 11 July 2022, which was only 17 days after the APVO was issued, the practitioner telephoned Person A. He told her he was sorry for the incident that occurred on 14 May 2022. Person A later contacted the Police "in a frantic state" and said she feared for her safety. 2. At around 7:30 am, the practitioner was arrested and charged with one count of contravening the APVO, contrary to s14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, by knowingly contacting Person A between 4:59 pm and 5:30 pm on 11 July 2022. The practitioner's conduct also contravened his Court imposed bail conditions, which mirrored the APVO conditions. 3. Therefore, on 11 or 12 July 2022, the practitioner's bail was revoked. He was incarcerated. 4. The practitioner pleaded guilty and was convicted. He was sentenced, for the sexual touching offence, to an indicative term of imprisonment of 14 months; and for the breaching of the APVO offence, to an indicative term of imprisonment of four months. 5. However, in practical terms, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 months, taking into account the three months he had already served in custody. This was to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order, commencing on 27 March 2023. For the larceny offence, the practitioner received a section 10A order. 6. The Commission submits that the Tribunal ought to find the subject of the matter of the complaint proved. The fact that a Court of higher standing has made the finding, on the criminal standard of proof, that the offences were proved is a sound basis for this Tribunal to determine that the complaint is proven. Stage Two- Protective orders 1. The Commission submits that having found the circumstances of the subject matter of the complaint proved, it ought to exercise its discretionary powers to make protective orders. The Commission submits that the circumstances of the offences render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practice paramedicine. 2. The relevant principles include disciplinary powers pursuant to s149 of the National Law. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is primarily protective not punitive. The relevant principles provide that the protection of public safety and health is paramount (s3B of National Law). 3. Whether a practitioner is unfit in the public interest to practice requires the Tribunal to consider the nature of the conviction and the circumstances in which the offence was perpetrated (HCCC v Turner [2016] NSW CADOD 163 at [67]). The Tribunal must also consider the relevant factual background and the impact of the conviction on the practitioner in terms of any insight, contrition or remorse. The Tribunal must also consider the direct risk to patient, and the risk of damage to the public's trust in the profession. 4. Whether the practitioner is unfit to practice must be assessed wholistically. The Tribunal must consider matters such as the practitioner's motivation, insight, and attempts at remediation. 5. The Tribunal must consider the maintenance of standards of the profession, preservation of public confidence in the profession, and, more broadly, the protection of the community (Prakash v HCCC [2006] NSW CA 153 at [91]) 6. 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 similar misconduct or incompetence of other practitioners and upholding public confidence in the standards of the profession. That objective is achieved by maintaining standards and, where appropriate, cancelling the registration of practitioners who are not fit to practice. 7. Denouncing such contact also serves as a deterrent to the individual concerned and to the general body of practitioners and maintains public confidence by signalling that those whose conduct does not meet requisite standard will not be permitted to practice (HCCC v Do [2014] NSW CA 307 at [35]). 8. In assessing its gravity, the offending conduct is not to be measured by reference to the worst cases but by reference to the extent to which it departs from proper standards (HCCC v Litchfield [1997] NSW SC 297 (1997) 41 NSW LR 630 at 638) 9. The adverse consequences for a practitioner may require that an order should be made which is no more restrictive than necessary for the proper protection of the community. However, it is unavoidable that protective orders may be incidentally punitive. Any assertion that the practitioner's character has been reformed requires clear proof. (Exparte Tziniolis: re Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 6SR(NSW) 448, 461) 10. The Commission seeks an order under s149C(4)(a) of the National law that the Tribunal would have cancelled the practitioner's registration pursuant to s149C(1)(c) of the National Law, because the circumstances of the offences render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practice paramedicine. The National Law does not define "unfit in the public interest to practice". The Commission submits that this term should be interpreted in the context of the guiding principles of the National Law. 11. In HCCC v FLJ [2023] NSW CATOD 7 at [93] the Tribunal held that the Tribunal may consider 'whether the practitioner's criminal offence exhibits traits in the practitioner inconsistent with the honourable practice of an honourable profession' and that it is not necessary for a nexus to be established between the criminal offence and the practice of that profession. 12. The context of the offending behaviour is set out earlier in these Reasons for Decision and need not be repeated here. 13. The Commission submits that the circumstances of the offences render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practice paramedicine. The Commission referred the Tribunal to AHPRA's Registration Standard-Criminal History (at page 657). The nature and gravity of the offences 1. The Commission contends that a sexual touching offence is "gravely serious". Person A was 17 years old and her breasts were touched without her consent. The Commission contends that the practitioner must have known that Person A was highly vulnerable because she had previously attempted self-harm and had recently expressed suicidal ideation to him. She was young, obviously intoxicated and alone in the rear seat of his ambulance. 2. The fact that parliament considers sexual touching to be a serious offence is demonstrated by the fact that it carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. 3. In this case, the Magistrate made findings that the practitioner's conduct was: "a very serious example of that type of offence….Clearly, in my view, there was a degree of planning. Clearly, this was a significant breach of trust on his part. Not only was he her father's friend of many years, but he had also taken a specific role in her care after the death of her father, and he abused that trust in circumstances where she was clearly vulnerable, drunk, young, and in the back of his ambulance where he was in full uniform. In my view, the touching of her breast underneath the bra and the touching of her thigh in combination with kissing her, taking into account what that breach of trust, which was grave, and the degree of planning at least from the time he decided to take her to the industrial area and having regard to her vulnerability makes this offence fall well above the mid-range of objective seriousness for an offence of this type". 1. The Commission submitted that the larceny offence is also serious because it is an offence of dishonesty. The theft of medications was deliberately planned and secretive. The maximum offence for larceny is also five years imprisonment. 2. Finally, the Commission submitted that the offence of contravening the APVO was also a serious offence. The practitioner deliberately contacted Person A, in direct violation of a Court order which was made only 17 days prior for the purpose of her protection. The maximum penalty for this offence is two years imprisonment. The potential relevance of the offence to the health practice 1. The sexual touching offence is directly relevant to the practitioner's role as a paramedic. Standard 4.2.3. of the NSW Health Code of Conduct provides that paramedics are required to ensure that their actions are not influenced by self-interest or other improper motives. 2. The practitioner, whilst wearing his uniform, escorted Person A into the ambulance and buckled her into the rear of the ambulance whilst she was intoxicated and hyperventilating. The Magistrate found that he did so with a plan to touch her in a sexual way. The public is entitled to expect that a paramedic will only touch a patient if clinically indicated. 3. A registered paramedic is required to use all his or her equipment and resources for work related purposes only. The practitioner was not authorised to remove any medications from the station whilst off-duty. He stole the medications and made fake entries in the drug registry to conceal this conduct. The public is entitled to expect that paramedics will properly safeguard medication which is intended for patient use only, and act with integrity. 4. The public is entitled to expect that paramedics will display of standard of behaviour that engenders trust and respect. The APVO was a document expressed in clear English and clearly set out the consequences of non-compliance. The Presiding Magistrate found that the practitioner displayed "a very serious example of a breach of an AVO, particularly whilst he is on bail for the very offence for which he is apologising…making her relive that trauma". The period of time since the offence was committed 1. The offences were committed in May 2022 and the practitioner was convicted in February 2023. This is approximately 18 months prior to the hearing The conviction and sentence imposed 1. The practitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 months for the sexual touching offence, which carried an indicative term of imprisonment of 14 months, and the breaching of the APVO offence, which carried an indicative term of imprisonment of four months. This took into account the three months that the practitioner had already served in custody. The sentence was to be served by an intensive correction order commencing on 27 March 2023. 2. For the larceny offence, the practitioner was sentenced to a s10A order which is conviction with no other penalty imposed. The practitioner's behaviour after committing the offences 1. After committing the sexual touching offence, the practitioner told Person A that she "owed him big time" because he had helped her and driven her home. He carried her to her bed and kissed her on the forehead. He told her mother that he had helped her. After committing his larceny offence, he attempted to conceal his conduct to avoid detection. The practitioner's explanations 1. The practitioner has provided inconsistent accounts to health practitioners, some of which seek to minimise or ignore his responsibility for his actions on 14 May 2022. 2. On the day after the sexual touching, the practitioner provided his account, set out earlier in these Reasons for Decision, to DOM Yousif. He included the comment: "During that time a kiss was exchanged and I touched her breast". He also wrote to the Acting Director of Clinical Operations to apologise for tarnishing "the whole organisation". A couple of hours later, he told the paramedic who attended him when he attempted suicide "There are some things you can't undo". 3. However, the evidence demonstrates that when he was receiving treatment for his mental illness, the practitioner attributed his suicide attempt to vicarious trauma and did not mention the incident with Person A. 4. On 25 May 2022, the practitioner explained to his Psychologist that he simply helped Person A clean up vomit stains on her clothes and hands, dropped her home, and said nothing inappropriate had happened. 5. When he submitted his notification to the Paramedicine Board on 25 May 2022, he reported stealing the medication but again did not mention the incident with Person A. 6. On 24 June 2022, the conditions of the APVO were explained to the practitioner. He breached those conditions 17 days later. He explained to the Commission that his experience with APVOs was "limited to my contact with patients who had breached their APVOs with apparent minimal consequences". He claimed he did not appreciate the seriousness of his conduct. (page 53) 7. He said that he decided to call Person A to apologise for what had occurred and, because he had received harassing phone calls from persons unknown, to ask her to stop. 8. The practitioner told his Psychiatrist that he felt remorse for "touching Person A's breast". He told his employer later that he disagreed that he had picked Person A up from the party as an extension of his role as the family liaison officer to the family. He attempted to minimise Person A's intoxication and the sexual touching. He said: "It was not prolonged, it occurred while listening to breath sounds during a 15 second period". He described her allegations as "untested and mischievous". He said: "I regret that I agreed to be the Ambulance Liaison Officer and…that I answered her call that night, that I foolishly put myself in a situation that resulted in this occurring. I regret that I constantly felt the need to fix everyone else's problem". 9. He pleaded guilty to one count of sexual touching, larceny and breaching the APVO. He also admitted possessing prescribed restricted substances. However, he said: "I plead guilty to the offences as soon as the Police changed the agreed facts…This whole incident was made out to be something that it was not and, in time, the evidence vindicated me resulting in many of the charges being withdrawn with the exception of the single charge that resulted from my version of the events". 10. The issue we must determine is whether the circumstances of the offences for which the practitioner was convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practice his profession. 11. We agree with the sentencing Magistrate. The practitioner knew that Person A was vulnerable. He was in a position of trust, which he egregiously betrayed. 12. We also find that the practitioner's actions when he stole restricted medication and falsified the records, represents a very serious breach of his duty to the public as a paramedic. 13. Finally, the fact that the practitioner breached the APVO, only 17 days after it was issued, for whatever reason, is consistent with a lack of respect for the law and Person A. 14. For those reasons, we find that the circumstances of the offences for which the practitioner was convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practice his profession. Disqualification period 1. The Commission seeks a four-year disqualification period. 2. Section 149C(4)(b) of the National Law gives the Tribunal discretion to determine that disqualification period. The fixing of the disqualification period, which can be made when the practitioner is no longer registered, provides for the safety of the public, by ensuring that only those who are suitably trained and qualified to practice in a competent and ethical manner are registered (s3(2)(a) of the National Law). 3. When determining the appropriate order to make, the Tribunal is required to exercise the functions under the National Law and have regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme set out in s3. 4. The Tribunal can make a prohibition order if it is satisfied that the practitioner poses a substantial risk to the health of members of the public (s149C(5) of the National Law). This is aligned with the protective purpose of the legislation. 5. The evidence demonstrates that the practitioner: 1. betrayed the trust of Person A and her family, who were relying on his for support at a difficult time in their life; 2. opportunistically committed the offence of sexual touching against a 17-year-old woman who was intoxicated and vulnerable and who he knew had expressed previous suicidal ideation; 3. expressed inconsistent statements about the nature of that conduct thereafter; 4. deliberately abused his position to steal medication and took steps to conceal that offence; 5. in contravention of a clearly stated APVO, contacted the vulnerable person, which potentially caused her further distress and trauma. 1. We are satisfied that this is conduct which undermines the confidence that the public could hold in the profession. We find that it is appropriate to protect the health and safety of the public by imposing a disqualification period. 2. To determine the length of the disqualification period does not require an arithmetical or comparative process. The Tribunal may exercise its discretion. 3. In this instance, we note that the practitioner is aware of the Commission's request that a four-year disqualification period be imposed. He has indicated that he agrees to it. 4. For that reason, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to impose a four year period. Costs 1. The Tribunal advised the parties that it proposed to make an order for costs in favour of the Commission. The practitioner was given leave to file submissions addressing why the Tribunal should not award costs to the Commission, by no later than 18 October 2024. The Commission was given leave to file submissions in reply, by 25 October 2024 2. The parties were advised that the application for costs would be decided on the papers, unless an application to the contrary was received by the Tribunal by 25 October 2024. 3. On 9 September 2024, the practitioner emailed Ms Clucas, solicitor for the applicant. Although he did not submit his applications to the Tribunal, as directed, Ms Clucas forwarded those submissions to the Tribunal, and we have considered them. 4. The practitioner submitted that the Tribunal should not award costs in favour of the applicant for the following reasons: * He has been unwell for more than two years. This is the reason he did not participate in the hearing. He submitted that, had he participated, the Tribunal may have "viewed this matter to a lesser degree or less serious". * His family has experienced significant hardship, as a result of his loss of earning capacity. This caused him to sell the family vehicle last year. He is currently selling his camper trailer and his home, because, he submitted, the family can no longer afford the mortgage repayments. * An award of course would significantly impact on his family's already stretched finances and would affect his children. * Should an order for costs be made, he would need to seek permission to have the money garnished from his account fortnightly. He has already received assistance to manage credit cards and other debts * His failure to "defend" himself "may have been seen as indifference". However, this is not the case. * He has had to pay significant legal fees and was incarcerated for three months, because he "made a phone call". He wrote "I have paid for this offence and I have nothing more to give" 1. The applicant presses its claim for costs. Senior advocate, Ms Bayley, provided a submission in response on the 17th of September 2024. She submitted that the Commission seeks an order, under clause 13 of schedule 5D of the National Law, that the practitioner pay the Commission's costs, as agreed or assessed. 2. The applicant, correctly, in our view, submitted that the relevant principles include: * The Tribunal has discretion to make a cost order (clause 13(1) of schedule 5D of the National Law); * The New South Wales Court of Appeal has found that the purpose of an award of costs is to compensate the successful party. As a general rule, costs of proceedings before the Tribunal should follow the event (HCCC v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA342 at [42]-[46]); and * The presumption that the successful party entitled to receive their costs is generally only displaced where there has been some disentitling conduct by the successful party (Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72 at [40]). * The Tribunal has also recently considered applications for costs (Puriv v Medical Council of New South Wales (No 2) [2024) NSWCATOD 122 at [13]; and HCCC v Muthukrishna (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD142 at [10]). In those matters, the Tribunal found that 'disentitling conduct' means misconduct relating to the litigation, or circumstances leading up to the litigation, and that the onus vests with the unsuccessful party to establish a basis for any departure from the general rule. 1. In this matter the Commission submits that there has been no disentitling conduct by the Commission to warrant such a departure from the general rule. 2. Ms Bayley submitted that the Commission took a number of steps to minimise costs, including not briefing council, and acted appropriately to progress the proceedings, also to assist the practitioner. 3. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that impecuniosity has been held, by the Court of Appeal, not to be a justifiable reason for a departure from the general rule that cost of the proceedings should follow the event. 4. Both parties consented to the application for costs being determined on the papers. 5. The Tribunal is satisfied that there has been no disentitling conduct on the part of the applicant and no valid basis for departure from the general rule has been established by the practitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal orders that costs be awarded to the applicant, as agreed or assessed. Orders 1. Pursuant to clause 7 of Schedule 5D of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) 2009, the name and address of the practitioner is not to be published. This does not prevent the applicant from communicating those details to the following authorities only: 1. AHPRA 2. The Paramedicine Council of NSW 3. NSW Ambulance 4. The Pharmaceutical Regulatory Unit 1. Pursuant to section 149C(4)(a) of the National Law, if the practitioner were still registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration, pursuant to section 149C(1)(c) of the National Law, because the circumstances of the offences render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practice paramedicine. 2. Pursuant to section 149C(4)(b) of the National Law, the practitioner is disqualified from being registered in the health profession for a period of four years from the date of this order; 3. Pursuant to section 149C(1)(c) of the National Law, the National Board is required to record the fact that if the practitioner were still registered, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration, in the National Register kept by the Board; 4. Costs are to be awarded to the applicant, as agreed or assessed. ********** 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 14 October 2024 - senior members name corrected 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: 14 October 2024