Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Bergmeier [2014] NSWCATOD 75 Hearing dates: 17, 18, 19, 20 March 2014 Written submissions 13 June 2014 Decision date: 16 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: D Robinson, Principal Member Dr C Lennings, Psychologist Member E Shaw, Psychologist Member Dr J Milne, PhD, Lay Member Decision: The Tribunal finds the Respondent Psychologist guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. Catchwords: Unsatisfactory professional conduct; professional misconduct, boundary violations, personal relationship with prison inmate; manipulation and falsification of prison records; cancellation of registration. Legislation Cited: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) No 86a; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw(1938) 60 CLR 336;HCCC v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630; HCCC v Gillett [2007] NSWNMT 7; HCCC v Howe [2010] NSWMT 12; Gayed v Walton [1997] NSWSC 279; Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1984] 1 QB 750; Pillai v Messiter [No.2] (1989) 16 NSWLR 197. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Complainant) Bobbi Bergmeier (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Ms S Beckett (Complainant) R Lewis,(Complainant) Timothy Hemsley and Associates, (Respondent) File Number(s): 1420013 Publication restriction: Non Publication order applies in respect of information identifying the person known as Client A and to information identifying the person referred to as Ms X. reasons for decision What the Tribunal decided 1The Tribunal found Ms Bergmeier guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, as alleged in the Complaints brought before the Tribunal. 2The Tribunal reprimanded Ms Bergmeier in the strongest possible terms. 3The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of Ms Bergmeier's registration and further ordered that she not be eligible to apply for review of that decision within 2 years from the date of this order. Any such application for review must be considered by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. 4The Tribunal ordered that Ms Bergmeier be prohibited from providing various health services in both the private and public sectors. 5The Tribunal ordered that Ms Bergmeier pay the costs of the Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission). 6The Tribunal also made a non-publication order in relation to information identifying Ms Bergmeier's client, referred to in these Reasons as Client A and information identifying a former treating psychologist of Client A, referred to in these Reasons as Ms X. Background Ms Bergmeier 7Ms Bergmeier studied psychology at the University of Western Sydney, graduating in 2008 with a Bachelor of Psychology. She first worked as a volunteer and then obtained employment at the Mary MacKillop Outreach Centre in Lewisham, Sydney. While working there, Ms Bergmeier attended the College of Psychological Practice. 8At Mary MacKillop, Ms Bergmeier worked with people with intellectual and physical disabilities, assisting clients with community access, such as bus outings. She later had a caseload of 6 clients for whom she developed individual service plans. 9In early 2010 Ms Bergmeier successfully applied for a position as an intern psychologist at the Junee Correctional Centre. She moved from Sydney, with her fiancé Patrick, to reside with her mother in Wagga Wagga. 10She commenced employment at the Junee Correctional Centre in April 2010 and worked there until her resignation took effect on 26 August 2011. 11Ms Bergmeier became a registered psychologist in April 2011. 12As part of her duties at Junee Correctional Centre, Ms Bergmeier saw clients managed by the Serious Offenders Review Council (SORC). She saw Client A in this capacity on 21 May 2010 and continued to see him on a monthly basis until August 2011. 13Ms Bergmeier is currently employed as a Behaviour Support practitioner at the Mercy Centre and is enrolled in a degree in primary school teaching at Charles Sturt University. Client A 14Client A was an inmate at the Junee Correctional Centre from 16 September 2009 until 29 October 2011. He was serving a 21 year sentence for murder and malicious wounding. 15He was managed by SORC and was involved in the Violent Offenders Therapeutic Program (VOTP). 16Client A moved to Mannus Correctional Centre in October 2011 and was released into the community on parole on 6 March 2014. The Complaints 17In February 2012, Mr Willem Drotsky, senior psychologist at the Junee Correctional Centre and Ms Bergmeier's supervisor, made a notification to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) in relation to his concerns about Ms Bergmeier's relationship with Client A. He asserted that Ms Bergmeier entered into a personal relationship with Client A while he was her client. He believed she altered certain official records in an attempt to conceal her relationship with Client A. 18The Commission, after consulting with the Psychology Council of New South Wales, made two Complaints to the Tribunal. The Complaints allege that Ms Bergmeier is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. 19It is alleged that Ms Bergmeier failed to maintain proper professional boundaries with Client A, in that she received multiple personal phone calls from him while she was his psychologist. It is asserted that Ms Bergmeier continued a personal relationship with Client A after she resigned from the Junee Correctional Centre, by receiving telephone calls, some of which were intimate in nature, by visiting him at Mannus Correctional Centre, having a close, personal relationship with Client A's family and friends and applying to be his sponsor for the Day/Weekend Leave program. 20The Complaints also allege that Ms Bergmeier improperly accessed the Offender Integrated Management System (OIMS) and used another person's password, without her permission, to enter false information in relation to the identity of the author of Client A's case notes. It is also alleged she altered the SORC allocation list to falsely show another psychologist as Client A's allocated psychologist. 21The Complaints, their Background and Particulars are set out in Annexure A to this decision. Legislative provisions 22As a consequence of the enactment of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), (the NCAT Act) the Psychology Tribunal was abolished effective from 31 December 2013. The Tribunal's functions were taken over by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). In accordance with Schedule 1, Part 2, Division 3, Clause 6 of the NCAT Act these proceedings can be regarded as "unheard proceedings". Clause 7 (3) (b) provides that the provisions of any Act, statutory rule or other law that would have applied to or in respect of the proceedings had this Act and the relevant amending Acts not been enacted, continue to apply. 23Accordingly, pursuant to the transitional provisions in the NCAT Act, the relevant legislative provisions remain those in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) No 86a. 24Unsatisfactory professional conduct is relevantly defined in S139B of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law(NSW) (the National Law) to include: (a) Conduct significantly below reasonable standard Conduct that demonstrates the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed or the care exercised by the practitioner in the practice of the practitioner's profession is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. (l) Other Improper or Unethical Conduct Any other improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of the practitioner's profession. 25Professional Misconduct is defined in S139 E of the National Law as: (a) Unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration; or (b) More than one instance of unsatisfactory professional conduct that, when the instances are considered together, amount to conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration Issues 26The issues for the Tribunal are: (1)whether the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that each of the Particulars of the Complaints are proven; and (2)if so, whether Ms Bergmeier's conduct amounts to unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct; and (3) if such findings are made, whether orders or directions pursuant to the National Law are appropriate. Standard of proof 27The Commission bears the onus of establishing that Ms Bergmeier has departed to the requisite degree from the appropriate standards and is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. 28The standard of proof required to establish the Complaints is the civil standard so the Tribunal must be reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the matters alleged against Ms Bergmeier. However because of the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of their consequences, the Tribunal needs to be comfortably satisfied that the Complaints have been established to the Briginshaw standard (see Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336). Nature of the Jurisdiction 29The jurisdiction exercised by this Tribunal is protective, not punitive (see HCCC v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 and HCCC v Gillett [2007] NSWNMT 7). 30The Tribunal's primary purpose is the protection of the health and safety of the public. This involves guarding against further misconduct by the practitioner and more general public protection through the deterrence of other practitioners. It is also important that public confidence in the psychology profession is maintained and that high professional standards are fostered. (see HCCC v Howe [2010] NSWMT 12; Gayed v Walton [1997] NSWSC 279.) Procedural matters Exhibits 31The Tribunal considered the following documents which were provided by the parties: The Commission provided two folders of documents tabbed 1 to 39 (Exhibit A). The Commission also provided additional documents during the hearing (Exhibits C - F). Ms Bergmeier provided two statements (Exhibit B). One was undated but received at the NCAT registry on 6 March 2014. The other was contained in a letter from Mr Hemsley dated 13 March 2014. Written submissions were to be provided by the parties at the conclusion of the proceedings. The Commission filed submissions on 6 May 2014, but the Respondent failed to provide submissions in accordance with the agreed timetable. Mr Hemsley was allowed further time, until 13 June 2014, however no submissions were provided. Witnesses 32The following people gave oral evidence to the Tribunal: (a)Ms Bergmeier, the Respondent (b)Mr Willem Drotsky, Ms Bergmeier's supervisor at the Junee Correctional Centre (c)Mr Jason White, Correctional Supervisor, Intelligence section, Junee Correctional Centre. (d)Ms X, a health practitioner involved in Client A's care. (e)Ms Samantha Ainsworth, psychologist at the Junee Correctional Centre (f)Ms Greta Goldberg, clinical psychologist, gave expert evidence for the Commission. Non Publication Order 33The Tribunal made a non-publication order to prevent the publication of the name of Ms Bergmeier's client or any information which might identify that client. In these Reasons he is referred to as Client A. A non-publication order was also made in relation to Ms X, a health practitioner involved in Client A's care. 1. Is the Tribunal comfortably satisfied that each of the Particulars of the Complaints is proven? Admissions 34Ms Bergmeier made a considerable number of admissions. 35She conceded that she failed to maintain proper professional boundaries with Client A. She received approximately 300 personal telephone calls from him while she was employed as a psychologist at Junee Correctional Centre. She admitted that she used a false name, when contacted by prison officials, to facilitate "Skype" calls from Client A. She also conceded that after July 2011, some calls were intimate in nature and involved the exchange of endearments. 36She admitted that she continued a personal relationship with Client A after she left Junee Correctional Centre. She continued to receive telephone calls, she visited him at Mannus Correctional Centre and she developed a close relationship with his family and friends, especially his father and sister. 37Ms Bergmeier acknowledged that she did apply to be Client A's sponsor for Day and Weekend Leave, although she denies that she described herself as his girlfriend when making that application. 38Ms Bergmeier also acknowledged that she had entered false information in Client A's case note records by recording that another psychologist, Ms Ainsworth, was the author of those records. She did this by using Ms Ainsworth's password to access the OIMS system, however denied that she used Ms Ainsworth's password without her permission. 39Ms Bergmeier admitted Particular 3 in that she stated she had altered the SORC allocation list to falsely record that another person was Client A's allocated SORC psychologist. 40In summary, Ms Bergmeier admitted the Particulars of the Complaint, with the exception of the following matters: Particular 2 (b) - she denied that she used Ms Ainsworth's password without her permission Particular 5 (e) - she denied that she claimed to be Client A's girlfriend when making the sponsorship application 41Ms Bergmeier did admit that her conduct constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct but denied that it was professional misconduct. Particular 2 42It is noted that in relation to Particular 2 (a), the Commission's assertion is that the improper entering of false information in Client A's records relates to the entry of a false name for the author of the notes. Ms Bergmeier has admitted Particular 2 (a). She concedes she accessed the OIMS system using Ms Ainsworth's password and acknowledges that therefore the information in the case notes, which identifies the author of the notes, is incorrect. 43Particular 2 (b) alleges that Ms Bergmeier used Ms Ainsworth's password without her permission. Ms Bergmeier's evidence 44Ms Bergmeier denies this aspect of Particular 2 (b). In her oral evidence Ms Bergmeier said she had permission from Ms Ainsworth to use her password, she had done so before and it was common practice for staff to use colleagues' passwords. 45Ms Bergmeier's evidence was that she started at Junee Correctional Centre in April 2010. She completed the induction program, including the OIMS training. She received her own log-in and password after some delay, during which she accessed the system using Ms Ainsworth's password. 46She acknowledged that from February 2011 she entered 5 case notes for Client A into the OIMS system using Ms Ainsworth's password. She also acknowledged that she had used Ms Ainsworth's password to conceal her relationship with Client A, Q. Can you tell the Tribunal, provide an explanation as to why you chose to use Samantha's password, or log in rather than your password and log in for those notes, or for that period of time? A. Like when after when the relationship like had developed, I know that I didn't you know, I didn't want to be linked to Client A so that once, like just trying to think like just I think I didn't want I can't think I guess I didn't want, you know, Client A to get in trouble and I just stupidly I guess I was trying to so my name wouldn't be, you know, like linked to Client As or 47However Ms Bergmeier repeatedly denied that she had used Ms Ainsworth's password without her permission. Q. Are you able to firstly advise us or assist the Tribunal why in February 2011 did you start using Samantha Ainsworth's log in to enter some case notes? A. Well....... I'd been using her log in when I was entering stupidly I shouldn't have had, like, access to her account but I was using her log in for other people as well, and like when I think back to it at the time I didn't think much of it because I had been using it in the past. There was like I did have this thing and it's stupid, but when I would read notes that I wrote, like I just didn't like when I wrote it I didn't like how it sounded kind of thing, but that was more of confidence but yeah I Q. How did you get the password on Ms Ainsworth? A. I asked her and she gave it to me. Q. Did the OIMS password change on a fairly regular basis? A. Yes. Q. So over that period of time for the five notes, there would've been at least one or more different passwords needed for that account? A. Yes. Q. How did you get those passwords? A. I asked her and she I think there was about three that she would alternate between. Ms Ainsworth 48Ms Ainsworth was also employed at Junee Correctional Centre, initially as an intern psychologist and then as a psychologist. She was a colleague of Ms Bergmeier. 49In relation to access to the OIMS system, Ms Ainsworth denied that it was common practice to use another person's password and stated that that would only be done in exceptional circumstances. 50She said that once the OIMS training was done a staff member would be given access via a personal password. There may be some delay in obtaining the password. If case notes needed to be written and a staff member did not have a password, the usual practice was that the supervisor would log on, and the author of the note would indicate in writing in the case notes that despite the log on information, he or she had seen the inmate and was the actual author of the case note. 51Ms Ainsworth stated that at some time between April and July 2011, Ms Bergmeier had asked her for her password to access the OIMS system. She said the reason Ms Bergmeier gave for the request was that "she wanted to know if Ms Ainsworth trusted her". Ms Ainsworth said that she had denied this request. Her evidence is as follows: Q. Before April 2011, had you been aware of her using your password? A. No. Q. What was your own arrangement as to where you kept your password to the OIMS system? A. On a post it note in my Q. Up until April 2011? A. Yeah, on a post it note in my stationery drawer. Q. Was that a locked drawer? A. No. Q. How many times between April and July 2011 did the respondent ask for your password? A. Just once. Q. At the time that she asked you, had you still, can you recall, did you still have the post it note in your desk? A. Yes, until July. Q. You've referred to July going on holidays or taking some leave for your birthday and going down to Melbourne? A. Melbourne Q. So you are sure of the date, are you, because of the birthday, is that right? A. Yes. Q. You received a text on that occasion? A. Yes. Q. To the best of your ability what was the content of the text? A. That the respondent had had to get my password changed and that the new password was on my desk on a post it note. Q. Prior to you going on leave, had you updated your password? A. Yes. Q. How often did the system require you to renew your password? A. I think it's every six weeks, something like that. Six weeks, three months, I don't know, a period of time. Q. When you came back to work, you found the post it note with the new password on your desk, did you? A. Yes. Q. Did you have a conversation with the respondent as to why she had needed to use your password? A. No. Q. Had she expressed to you any problems that she was having with accessing the OIMS system? A. No. Q. I am sorry, did you say that you had a discussion about why this happened? A. No. Q. Did you think it was odd? A. Yes. Q. Did you have any inkling as to why it was that she might have required your password? A. No. 52Ms Ainsworth explained that it was not possible to retrospectively change the identity of the author of a case note. She also noted that the first case note written by Ms Bergmeier under her name was dated 25 February 2011. 53In cross examination Ms Ainsworth stated that she did not report the unauthorised resetting of her password even though she thought it odd. She didn't inquire with her manager if permission had been given to Ms Bergmeier to use her password. She also acknowledged that three other people, Mr Alam, Mr Shepherd and Ms McMahon, had at various times used her password. 54Ms Ainsworth told the Tribunal she believes that Ms Bergmeier used her old password three times, was locked out of the system and had to have the password reset. She believes Ms Bergmeier obtained the password by taking it from her desk drawer. 55Ms Ainsworth asserted that using other people's passwords was not a common practice and that what Ms Bergmeier had done was odd but she acknowledged that she did nothing about it. Her evidence continued, Q. Can you tell us the conversation you had with Ms Bergmeier about this, she said to you "I have to have your password changed"? A. It wasn't a conversation, it was a text message. Q. Did you ring her up or respond to the text? A. No. Q. So when you saw her next? A. I may have responded. I may have said something like "Thanks for letting me know"..................... I know she was going on holidays and if it was then I probably just said "Have a good time" or whatever. The Tribunal's Findings 56The Tribunal has some difficulty in accepting all of the account presented by Ms Ainsworth, given the inconsistencies in her evidence. 57Ms Ainsworth stated that the use of a password by a colleague was not a usual practice and occurred only in exceptional circumstances but she also acknowledged that at least three other people, as well as Ms Bergmeier, had used her password. 58She stated that in response to Ms Bergmeier's request, she had denied her access to her password, however she appeared to be indifferent when the password was in fact used and was changed by Ms Bergmeier. She did not discuss it with Ms Bergmeier or seek an explanation. 59Ms Ainsworth alleges what amounts to theft of her password by Ms Bergmeier but rather than outrage or even concern, Ms Ainsworth sends a text message thanking Ms Bergmeier for "letting me know" and possibly wishing her a happy holiday. 60The evidence of Ms Bergmeier is in direct contradiction to the evidence of Ms Ainsworth. Although the Tribunal considered Ms Bergmeier was not always a frank witness in relation to all aspects of her evidence, on the issue of having permission to use Ms Ainsworth's password, she gave consistent and credible testimony. 61Ms Ainsworth was generally a reliable witness, except in relation to this issue where her evidence was not cohesive or always credible. 62The Tribunal cannot be comfortably satisfied on the evidence before it that the Commission has established the elements necessary to prove Particular 2 (b). In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds Particular 2 (b) is not proven. Particular 5 (e) 63The only evidence provided in relation to this matter was provided by Ms Bergmeier. 64Ms Bergmeier admitted that she applied to be Client A's sponsor but denied that in making that application, she claimed to be his girlfriend. 65Ms Bergmeier told the Tribunal that she went to the Mannus Correctional Centre to apply to be Client A's sponsor for day/weekend leave. She was interviewed by an officer who filled out the application form on the basis of information she supplied. She was asked how long she had known Client A and she replied that she had known him for 2 ½ years. She said that she did not state she was his girlfriend and noted that the word 'girlfriend' on the application form is not written in her handwriting. 66However Ms Bergmeier stated that she saw that 'girlfriend' had been written on the application form by the officer. She also agreed that she signed the application form as a true and correct document. In cross examination, Ms Bergmeier acknowledged that she was in fact Client A's girlfriend. The Tribunal's findings 67Ms Bergmeier did not write on the application form herself. She asserts that she did not tell the officer filling out the application form that she was Client A's girlfriend but he assumed that was the situation. In any event, she was aware of the contents of the application form and signed the form as being "true and correct". The Tribunal considers that signing the form, knowing that she was referred to in it as Client A's "girlfriend", amounts to Ms Bergmeier claiming to be his girlfriend in the application for sponsorship. 68The Tribunal is satisfied that Particular 5 (e) is proven. 2. Does Ms Bergmeier's conduct amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct? 69Having determined that all of the Particulars of the Complaints, with the exception of Particular 2(b), are proven on the evidence and on the basis of Ms Bergmeier's admissions, the Tribunal must now consider whether Ms Bergmeier's conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. 70In determining this issue, the Tribunal has had regard to the oral and documentary evidence before it, the National Law, relevant case law, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics and the Psychology Board of Australia (PBA) Code of Conduct. Unsatisfactory professional conduct 71Unsatisfactory professional conduct is relevantly defined in S139B of the National Law to include: (a) Conduct significantly below reasonable standard Conduct that demonstrates the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed or the care exercised by the practitioner in the practice of the practitioner's profession is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. (l) Other Improper or Unethical Conduct Any other improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of the practitioner's profession. Evidence 72Ms Bergmeier has admitted that her conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct. This admission accords with the expert evidence provided by Ms Goldberg. Ms Goldberg 73Ms Goldberg is a clinical and forensic psychologist and has practiced as such since 1971. She is also the Clinical Director of Psychelpsydney. Ms Goldberg gave expert evidence for the Commission, by way of reports dated 28 November 2012 and 6 February 2013 and oral evidence. 74Ms Goldberg referred to the Australian Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics and the Psychology Board of Australia (PBA) Code of Conduct when commenting on Ms Bergmeier's conduct. 75She stated that the Codes require a psychologist to behave in a respectful manner and to safeguard the confidentiality of information obtained during the provision of psychological services. In her opinion, Ms Bergmeier failed to behave in a respectful manner, either to Client A or her professional colleagues. The confidentiality of information in Client A's files was not maintained as a result of Ms Bergmeier's actions. 76The Codes require a psychologist to take professional responsibility. Ms Bergmeier may have taken personal responsibility by resigning from the position at Junee, but Ms Goldberg asserts she failed to take professional responsibility. She says, "Her personal interest and need was prioritised over the care and responsibility for the client.......Ms Bergmeier schemed to avert the inevitable consequences of her own enmeshment with the client....... she did not initiate protective measures for her client's emotional safety." 77The appropriate course of action would have been to recognise she had a duty of care to the client over and above her personal needs and to speak to her supervisor, engage in supervision or otherwise seek proper professional counsel and support. 78Ms Bergmeier's professional code requires her to act with integrity and to avoid exploitative or inappropriate relationships with clients. Ms Goldberg considered that the evidence suggested "an intimate physical and emotional relationship did exist, which may have extended to sexual activity". In her oral evidence she said that the content of communications between Ms Bergmeier and Client A demonstrated a loving relationship, with sexualised involvement. She described the relationship as evidence of an inappropriate boundary transgression regardless of the nature of any physical relationship. 79Ms Goldberg described Client A as an emotionally vulnerable person because of his period of incarceration. He could be understood to be a needy and dependent person, with a psychological vulnerability after many years in the prison system. She considered that Client A's relationship with Ms Bergmeier may not be in his best interests as his opportunities for re-integration into the community and the development of adaptive social skills may be stifled by the relationship with Ms Bergmeier. His trust in the psychology profession may also be diminished. 80Ms Goldberg noted that the relationship continued after Ms Bergmeier left Junee Correctional Centre in the spite of the Code of Ethics' imprimatur that a personal relationship with a former client should not take place within two years of terminating the professional relationship. 81Ms Goldberg stated that Ms Bergmeier demonstrated a lack of integrity in using a colleague's password and entering false identifying information in official records. In her oral evidence she said she would be less critical of Ms Bergmeier using Ms Ainsworth's password if she had permission and it was a common practice, evidenced by other people also doing it. However, these comments would not apply to case notes for Client A, with whom Ms Bergmeier had an inappropriate relationship, which she was trying to conceal. 82She commented that in April 2011, at the very time Ms Bergmeier became registered as a psychologist in NSW, she was "apparently conspiring to deceive her professional peers and to conceal .....inappropriate intimacy from the authorities." 83Ms Goldberg spoke of the responsibility of a psychologist in relation to colleagues. She said this obligation required reflection on the impact of one's conduct on colleagues and the profession as a whole. She characterised the conduct of Ms Bergmeier as very negative for the profession. It undermined the potential for the psychologists at Junee Correctional Centre to be effective with other clients. 84Ms Goldberg gave evidence that the professional codes of conduct apply to intern psychologists as well as psychologists. 85Ms Goldberg was strongly critical of Ms Bergmeier's behaviour and concluded that her conduct fell significantly below the required standard of professional behaviour. The Tribunal's decision 86When the relationship with Client A began, Ms Bergmeier was an intern psychologist. She was registered as a psychologist in April 2011. The standard against which Ms Bergmeier's conduct is to be assessed is that of an intern and then junior psychologist. 87As Ms Goldberg indicates the professional codes of conduct apply to intern psychologists and Ms Bergmeier's own evidence (discussed below) establishes, although she was relatively inexperienced, she was aware of her ethical obligations. 88The Tribunal notes Ms Bergmeier's admissions in relation to unsatisfactory professional conduct. 89The Tribunal finds that Ms Bergmeier's conduct is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience and is also both improper and unethical. Accordingly, The Tribunal finds Ms Bergmeier's conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct. Professional Misconduct 90Professional Misconduct is defined in S139 E of the National Law as: (a) Unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration; or (b) More than one instance of unsatisfactory professional conduct that, when the instances are considered together, amount to conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration. 91The classic common law definition of professional misconduct is found in the case of Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1984] 1 QB 750 where it was said that professional misconduct is conduct 'which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by professional brethren of good repute and competency'. 92In determining whether the conduct in question amounts to professional misconduct, a deliberate departure from, or indifference to, accepted standards of practice can qualify as professional misconduct. See Pillai v Messiter [No.2] (1989) 16 NSWLR 197. Evidence The relationship 93Ms Bergmeier provided a written statement received at the Tribunal on 6 March 2014. She also made a statement of admissions dated 13 March 2014. 94Ms Bergmeier's evidence was that she was allocated Client A as a SORC inmate. She first saw him in that capacity in May 2010. Ms Bergmeier said that she continued to see Client A on a monthly basis and around April 2011 he declared that he had feelings for her. She said that she realised she had the same feelings for him. 95In the subsequent SORC meeting, in May 2011, Ms Bergmeier and Client A discussed their feelings for each other. Client A indicated he would like more contact with Ms Bergmeier. Ms Bergmeier agreed to phone contact "at some point" and gave him her Skype number. She acknowledged in oral evidence that there was an agreement that she would be contacted under the name "Briony Watts". 96Ms Bergmeier later stated that she is unclear about dates and given that her first use of Ms Ainsworth's password to enter Client A's case notes occurred in February 2011, she acknowledged the commencement of the relationship could have been earlier than May 2011. 97Mr Jason White gave evidence about the induction and training of employees at the Junee Correctional Centre. Security awareness training covers the issue of friendships with inmates and explains why this is to be avoided. He described the training in relation to manipulation techniques used by inmates. 98Ms Ainsworth also described the induction and training program at Junee Correctional Centre and the clear message it gave in relation to the unacceptability of relationships with inmates. Mr Drotsky told the Tribunal that given Ms Bergmeier's training at university, the supervision he provided and the nature and extent of in-house training at Junee Correctional Centre, there could be no confusion about the fact that a relationship with an inmate was "a no no". 99Ms Bergmeier accepted many telephone calls from Client A. She acknowledged that there was regular, in fact daily telephone contact after April 2011. Over a period of time the relationship became more intense and the calls were more personal. 100Ms Bergmeier admitted that giving Client A her phone number was wrong and was done because of her emotional attachment to him and desire for the relationship to continue. She accepted Skype calls from Client A using the name Briony Watts. When prison officials contacted Ms Bergmeier to set up the Skype calls, she was asked if she was Briony Watts and she said she was. 101According to Ms Bergmeier, her SORC meetings with Client A involved a combination of personal discussions and SORC issues. She said that the case notes she prepared were an accurate reflection of the SORC requirements. 102Ms Bergmeier decided to leave her employment at Junee Correctional Centre when she knew she had feelings for Client A. She said "when I knew I was doing the wrong thing professionally, I knew I had to leave". She tendered her resignation in July 2011 and left on 26 August 2011. 103She stated in response to a question from the Tribunal, Q. One final question then for me is, I just wondered whether you ever considered ending the relationship? Did you ever think, the stakes are too high or maybe it's not the right relationship? A. I think by the time that I, like had the feelings, like I, like it was, because they were like very strong, I didn't, like I didn't think to end it. 104She admitted the relationship continued and intensified after she left Junee. She developed close relationships with Client A's family, visited him at Mannus Correctional Centre and applied to be his day/weekend leave sponsor. At present Client A is residing with Ms Bergmeier's mother. Ms Bergmeier has separate accommodation but in evidence she stated that the relationship with Client A is continuing. 105Both Ms Goldberg and Ms X described Client A as a vulnerable person in the sense that he has had very limited experience with adult relationships, having been in jail since the age of 18. Ms X believes the relationship he has with Ms Bergmeier has prevented him from having the opportunity to meet a mix of people in the community and explore a range of personal relationships. She expressed concern that Client A may be at risk if the relationship with Ms Bergmeier breaks down. 106Ms Bergmeier expressed some understanding of the vulnerability of Client A and stated that she had reflected on the impact of the relationship for him, Q. You're aware that by breaching professional standards, that has consequences? A. Yes. Q. Have you given any thought as to what harm may have been caused to Client A by breaching those standards? A. Yes. Q. What sort of harm or potential harm could have been caused to Client A? A. Well, given that he was in for like a long time and he didn't have any other, well not that he didn't have any, but many other like, like social kind of networks, I thought, you know, like that he could become dependent on me. That like I could be seen as like because I was in that position, that, you know like I could have had the power over him type of interaction. So where he, you know, thought that like he was vulnerable to me because of like what my status had been to him, like as a psychologist, like other harm like what he'd done, like therapeutic wise. Like he like it could have, you know, impacted negatively upon him like seen negatively upon him and his role in it to security classifications or Supervision 107In oral evidence Ms Bergmeier stated she did not tell anyone about her connection with Client A. She did not discuss the relationship with her supervisor or any other members of staff. She said she was not comfortable to do this and was concerned about repercussion for Client A. She said she had strong feelings for Client A, was embarrassed and reluctant to discuss these "difficult emotions" and felt "there was no one she could talk to". 108Ms Bergmeier did not seek support or supervision outside Junee Correctional Centre, although there were several avenues for support open to her. She told the Tribunal she was troubled by the thought she might be judged by other psychologists. 109Ms Goldberg emphasised that the appropriate course of action for Ms Bergmeier was to seek support and engage in supervision. She was very critical for her failure to do this. 110Ms Bergmeier described her weekly supervision meetings with Mr Drotsky as "OK", but felt she did not get a great deal of assistance from him. Much of her statement, received on 6 March 2014, deals with her concerns and dissatisfaction with Mr Drotsky's supervision. She stated that she had asked Mr Drotsky to change her case load allocation, but he had declined to do so. 111She later conceded that it would not be correct to characterise Mr Drotsky as an unreceptive or unhelpful supervisor. She also conceded that she had respect for Mr Drotsky and had, after leaving Junee Correctional Centre, written an email to thank him and ask him not to lose faith in her. This email was submitted in evidence. 112Mr Drotsky's evidence was that he had regular supervision sessions with Ms Bergmeier. He felt they had a good working relationship and communicated well. He confirmed that Ms Bergmeier did not raise any issues concerning Client A with him. He was not aware of Ms Bergmeier's relationship with Client A until November 2011. 113Mr Drotsky denied having a discussion with Ms Bergmeier concerning Client A and denied that he had been asked by Ms Bergmeier to reallocate her SORC case load. As the Commission notes in its submission, "Mr Drotsky's evidence at the time of making his statement in 2012, was that when he met with the respondent at a cafe after the relationship with Client A had come to light, the respondent said words to the effect of "I didn't tell you about it as it would place you in a difficult position". 114Mr Drotsky also said, and Ms Bergmeier agreed, that they had discussed another inmate who had become attached to her and written her a letter. She showed Mr Drotsky the letter and accepted his advice as to how to manage the situation. Mr Drotsky provided a comprehensive response by relieving Ms Bergmeier of all responsibility in relation to that inmate and she stopped all contact with him. 115In the cross-examination it was suggested to Ms Bergmeier that she did not discuss her feelings for Client A with her supervisor because she knew that if she did, they would be separated. Q. My point is that you didn't tell Mr Drotsky what was going on with Client A because you had every intention of continuing in that relationship, you wanted the relationship to go on? A. I didn't tell Mr Drotsky specifically about Client A, but I it was I because of my own feelings of obviously I'm in a situation where, like, the stress of having those feelings and not, you know, like, attempting to, like, you know how do you address that though that those feelings with someone? You know, it's very difficult. Q. But is it the situation you found yourself in, just that you decided, having these feelings, I really love this man, and here's my ethical obligations to my profession, and you just gave precedence to your emotional relationship, is that fair? A. There's the ethics and you know, you know, you know the ethics but then when you have feelings that you've never experienced before, it's extremely difficult. Client A's case notes 116Psychologists working at Junee Correctional Centre wrote case notes after each session with an inmate. These case notes were part of the prison's official records and could be accessed by members of SORC and by VOTP staff. Client A was managed by SORC and was participating in VOTP. 117VOTP, the Violent Offenders Therapeutic Program is a 12 month intensive skill development program. VOTP Maintenance and Outreach, where, Ms X works as a registered psychologist, provides participants with ongoing support following the completion of the VOTP program. Client A completed VOTP in May 2009 and has since been in the Maintenance and Outreach program. He remains on that program although currently on parole. 118Ms X explained to the Tribunal the difference between the SORC process and VOTP. She described VOTP as a therapeutic program which provides psychological support to assist inmates to manage various risk factors and develop a range of life skills. SORC on the other hand is a classification body which manages an inmate's pathway through the system. SORC is only involved with serious offenders who are serving long sentences. 119Ms X stated that an inmate's case notes may be viewed by both SORC and VOTP. This shared documentation is used for different purposes. SORC may look at case notes in relation to classification issues, whereas VOTP uses case notes to obtain information about a prisoner's current circumstances. Ms X noted that case notes are also provided to the Parole Board as part of SORC's recommendations in relation to the parole of individual inmates. 120In evidence, both Mr Drotsky and Ms Ainsworth discussed aspects of the SORC process. SORC members would visit the prison twice a year. They would refer to the inmates' case notes to assist in understanding how the inmate was managing in the prison, how he was progressing and what issues, if any, he was facing. The notes were used to assist in the classification and reclassification process. 121Ms Bergmeier was asked about a possible conflict of interest in relation to her writing case notes for Client A. In oral evidence she said, Q. Do you concede now that your role in those case notes was a professional conflict of interest? A. I shouldn't have written the whole thing, yes. Like, I should not have even used anyone else's login. Q. But can you articulate why it was a conflict of interest? A. Because I there was a relationship at the time that the notes were written. Q. Why was that a potential issue? A. Because if anything, you know, was added in favourable, you know, to that could have helped Client A that would be the issue. Q. He could get a reduction in classification on the basis of a positive report, together with other information? A. If it yeah, if it was untrue. Q. Would you also agree that those case notes are meant to be an objective statement by a treating psychologist? A. Yes. Q. Do you also agree that there was another conflict of interest there that you had in interest in him being released early of as early as possible? A. I guess, yes. Falsifying records 122As described above, Ms Bergmeier gave evidence in relation to the use of Ms Ainsworth's password to make entries in Client A's case notes. She acknowledged that this meant that false information in relation to the author of the case note was recorded in the system. She described what she had done as "stupid'. 123Ms Bergmeier also admitted that she had altered the SORC allocation list. Q. Can you give any explanations why you did it? A. Besides stupidity, just like just panicked but no, just one split thought that went through my head and I stupidly did it, that's all I can say. Q. Was that at a time when you were trying to make sure that the records showed a distance between yourself and Client A? A. Yeah, probably, yeah. Dishonesty 124In her evidence Ms Ainsworth inferred that Ms Bergmeier had been dishonest in taking her password from her desk drawer without her permission. The Tribunal was unable to make findings on the basis of the available evidence, and determined that Particular 2(a) of the complaint was not established. However, there were aspects of Ms Bergmeier's behaviour which were dishonest. 125Mr White gave evidence as to how he had discovered that calls made by Client A to a friend known as Briony Watts were in fact calls to Ms Bergmeier. Ms Bergmeier admitted that when called by prison staff to set up the communication with Client A, she had lied about her identity. 126The Commission's submission provides a useful summary, "The respondent acknowledged that she had given Client A her Skype number and taken a call from the gaol asking for verification that she was Briony Watts and was willing to take calls from Client A in accordance with the gaol protocol for verifying callers. Contrary to the respondent's statement that she had not engaged in any "covert or deceptive strategy or plans to conceal the telephone calls or communications", the respondent clearly participated in this fiction to subvert the gaol (sic) security system by accepting a call, using the name, Briony Watts. Dr Goldberg was critical of the "complete disregard" for the gaol's security aspects in this regard." Ms Bergmeier's evidence - Credibility 127Ms Bergmeier presented as extremely anxious and was at times somewhat inarticulate, possibly as a result of anxiety. However she had significant difficulty answering some questions and recalling the details of some events. At different times during her testimony, and in respect of different issues, she was both candid and guarded. 128Inconsistencies between Ms Bergmeier's written statements and her oral evidence were raised with her. In her undated statement, received on 6 March 2014 she said, "My supervisor declined to alter the case loads that would have effectively ended any contact between Client A and myself. My supervisor did not provide me with support in this matter and did not provide me with support or assistance when advised of Client A's disclosure." 129However, in oral evidence Ms Bergmeier stated that she had not discussed Client A with her supervisor, Mr Drotsky. Her explanation for this discrepancy was not convincing. Q. So can you tell me what you mean by that "when advised of Client A's disclosure"? A. Like, when I was advised of his disclosure. So I've tried to like, it's not saying to one of it's not saying that Will was aware of Client A's disclosure but it's saying when I was aware of the disclosure and after I've attempted to like, discuss it. 130Similarly, in the same statement she said, "I did alter the SORC allocation list to reflect Ms Ainsworth as the allocated SORC psychologist for Client A as the list was not correct." 131In oral evidence Ms Bergmeier conceded that it was not the case that the list was incorrect. She had in fact changed the list in a moment of panic to distance herself from Client A. 132In her statement, Ms Bergmeier asserted that she was not Client A's treating psychologist, however this was retracted in her oral evidence, Q. The reason I ask is that in some of your responses to the HCCC and the admissions to this Tribunal you have inferred that you weren't in a role as a psychologist with Client A. That has been the inference of those documents so I am giving you the opportunity to see if you now concede that you were acting in that role? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that there was an ethical obligation and you were in breach of those ethical obligations? A. Yes. Impact on the profession 133Mr Drotsky gave evidence that the professional members of the psychology team at the Junee Correctional Centre have suffered as a result of the relationship between Ms Bergmeier and Client A. He said psychologists are regarded as "easy targets", easy to manipulate and the relationship had a very negative impact - their professional credibility "took a blow". He also stated that because the relationship had been a secret, the idea had developed that psychologists can't be trusted and the general atmosphere was one in which the professional status of the psychologists at Junee Correctional Centre had diminished. 134Ms Ainsworth said in evidence that she had received "a lot of flack" and that jibes had been made suggesting that "she would be next". 135Ms Goldberg was also critical of Ms Bergmeier in this regard and described her conduct as "reflecting poorly on her profession." The Commission also submits that Ms Bergmeier's attempts to transfer blame, by suggesting inadequate supervision from Mr Drotsky, indicates a lack of insight and candour which brings the profession into disrepute. Submissions from the Commission 136The Commission provided comprehensive written submissions on 5 May 2014 which the Tribunal had regard to in considering the evidence and the issues before it. 137The Commission drew attention to the seriousness of Ms Bergmeier's conduct in terms of danger to the community, danger to the reputation of the profession and the special vulnerability of Client A. 138The Commission submits that, "The facts indicate that the respondent, a young and inexperienced practitioner, knowingly entered into a relationship with her client, indicating her failure to maintain professional boundaries. This was a predicament she had been trained to be alert to.............. Although her manner of giving evidence indicated she had clearly been negatively impacted by the proceedings, she has continued to exercise her choice to maintain her relationship with Client A, in full knowledge of its professional ramifications. This indicates an ongoing decision to prioritise her personal relationship over her professional obligations." Submissions from Ms Bergmeier 139Although Ms Bergmeier's legal representative indicated an intention to provide written submissions and although the date for him to do so was extended to 13 June 2014, no written submissions were received. 140The Tribunal notes the following aspects of Ms Bergmeier's testimony. She has a subscription to the Mental Health Academy and has undertaken two courses in 2012 - one dealing with ethics and one with boundary issues. 141Since 2013 she has been seeing a counsellor, a psychologist in Wodonga, on a monthly basis and has discussed her unsatisfactory professional conduct, her attachment issues and the management of stress and anxiety. 142Ms Bergmeier did make a number of admissions during the hearing. 143Ms Bergmeier said she accepts responsibility for her actions and acknowledged that what she had done was wrong. She understood her conduct had breached her professional code of ethics. The Tribunal's decision 144Ms Bergmeier failed to maintain proper professional boundaries with Client A. She established and maintained a personal relationship with him in circumstances which constitute a serious boundary violation and accordingly a breach of her professional code of conduct and code of ethics. The personal relationship was established while Client A was Ms Bergmeier's client. It continued after Ms Bergmeier ceased to work at Junee Correctional Centre and continues until the present day. 145While Client A was an inmate of Junee Correctional Centre and Ms Bergmeier was his psychologist, she received a great many personal telephone calls from him. The calls which were regular and frequent, became intimate and then sexualised in nature. Even though the calls, made before 26 August 2011, were in the main made before and after work and on Ms Bergmeier's flex days, they occurred while she was employed to provide psychological services to Client A. 146There was some discussion during the hearing as to whether or not Ms Bergmeier was acting as a psychologist when seeing Client A. Ultimately it was agreed that this was the case, even though Client A may have also received psychological services from others, such as Ms X. In this regard it is also noted that Ms Bergmeier was employed as an intern psychologist and then a psychologist, and therefore in all her dealings with staff and inmates, whether they be on her caseload on not, Ms Bergmeier was always in role as a psychologist. 147Ms Bergmeier had induction, training and ongoing supervision at Junee Correctional Centre. Although she was relatively inexperienced as a psychologist, she was aware of her ethical obligations and aware that in having a personal relationship with Client A, she "was doing the wrong thing". 148Ms Bergmeier also developed a relationship with members of Client A's family, especially his sister and father. She visited him at Mannus Correctional Centre, sometimes in the company of his family, and applied to be his sponsor for Day and weekend leave. 149Client A, although serving a sentence for a serious crime, can be regarded as a vulnerable person. He was in a psychologist/client relationship with Ms Bergmeier which brings into play an inherent power differential. Client A had also been in prison for all of his adult life. He had had very little opportunity to explore or experience adult relationships and Ms Goldberg and Ms X described him as needy and dependent and psychologically vulnerable. 150Ms Bergmeier failed to demonstrate an understanding of the potential negative impact of her relationship with Client A, emotionally and, in a wider context, on his progress through the prison system. 151In her professional capacity Ms Bergmeier wrote case notes for Client A which were accessed and used by VOTP staff, SORC and potentially the Parole Board. They were used in determinations about his classification and potentially his release into the community. There is no suggestion that Ms Bergmeier falsified case notes in an attempt to mislead SORC or any other authority about Client A's psychological state, however, their relationship, her consequent lack of objectivity and the inherent conflict of interest "contaminated" those case notes. When the relationship came to light, serious doubt may have been cast on the usefulness of those notes in supporting Client A's progress through the system. At that time, Ms Bergmeier was oblivious to these potential difficulties for Client A. Her investment in the relationship was such that she was unmindful of or insensitive to the consequences of her actions for Client A. 152Ms Bergmeier failed to disclose the relationship to her supervisor or any other appropriate person. Ms Bergmeier initially suggested that her supervision was inadequate and that her supervisor dismissed her concerns without appropriate assistance. She later conceded that Mr Drotsky was not unhelpful and she had made a very limited effort to address the situation with him. 153Instead of seeking the available support offered through supervision, her efforts were aimed at sustaining and concealing the relationship and she falsified official records in an attempt to do this. Ms Bergmeier allowed her personal feelings and needs to take precedence over her professional and ethical responsibilities. 154As she explained in her evidence Q. But is it the situation you found yourself in, just that you decided, having these feelings, I really love this man, and here's my ethical obligations to my profession, and you just gave precedence to your emotional relationship, is that fair? A. There's the ethics and you know, you know, you know the ethics but then when you have feelings that you've never experienced before, it's extremely difficult. 155In addition to a serious violation of professional boundaries, Ms Bergmeier's conduct demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity. The establishment of access to regular phone calls took forethought, planning and subterfuge. The calls between Client A and Ms Bergmeier were facilitated by Ms Bergmeier adopting a false name and lying to prison staff about her identity. When contacted by the Junee Correctional Centre staff to confirm her identity, she lied and told them she was "Briony Watts". She flaunted the security system at Junee Correctional Centre for the purpose of her own personal gratification. 156Ms Bergmeier used a colleague's login and password to write case notes for Client A knowing that the case notes would indicate that the colleague and not Ms Bergmeier was the author of the notes. She did this for the specific purpose of concealing her relationship with Client A. She also falsified the SORC allocation list for the same purpose. 157At times during the hearing Ms Bergmeier presented as a frank witness however it is apparent when comparing her oral evidence and the written statements that she prepared and signed prior to the hearing that she has made significant changes to her story over time. 158Ms Bergmeier did not demonstrate integrity throughout the investigation process and had allowed her desire to continue her relationship with Client A to override her obligation to tell the truth. Her initial correspondence with the Commission denied an inappropriate relationship and presented an inaccurate picture of a relationship without any sexual interest. However the telephone records reveal an intimate and sexualised connection between Ms Bergmeier and Client A, leading to unprofessional conduct which was, as Ms Goldberg says, self-motivated and involved deliberate misleading of colleagues and prison authorities. 159Ms Bergmeier failed to exercise the judgment expected of her as a member of the psychology profession, specifically she was unable to prevent or pre-empt the development of the relationship with Client A and once established she was unable to take the necessary steps to deal with the situation in a professional manner. 160Ms Bergmeier appeared to give no attention to her duty to her profession, as required by her professional code. She gave evidence that she had not considered the effect the relationship with Client A would have on her colleagues, nor the effect that the use of another person's password might have on that person's own reputation. Indeed her decision making appeared to rest solely on what was required to advance the relationship with Client A. 161Overall Ms Bergmeier's conduct demonstrates serious deficiencies, in respect of a range of professional responsibilities, and the Tribunal is satisfied her conduct is sufficiently serious to justify suspension or cancellation of her registration as a psychologist. Her conduct brings the psychology profession into disrepute and impacts on the confidence that the community has in the profession. 162For these reasons, the Tribunal considers Ms Bergmeier is guilty of professional misconduct. 3. Are orders or directions pursuant to the National Law appropriate? 163Given the nature of Ms Bergmeier's professional misconduct, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to reprimand Ms Bergmeier in the strongest possible terms. 164The primary role of the Tribunal is to protect the health and safety of the public. Ms Bergmeier has demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of her responsibilities as a psychologist. She has been involved in a serious boundary violation and placed her client at risk. She has been dishonest in her dealings with authorities and has not been candid in her account of events. Her insight into the seriousness of her conduct and its impact on her client, her colleagues and the profession as a whole remains questionable. In these circumstances, the Tribunal determined to order the cancellation of Ms Bergmeier's registration. 165The Tribunal further ordered that Ms Bergmeier not be eligible to apply for review of that decision within 2 years from the date of this order and any such application for review must be considered by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. 166This will gives Ms Bergmeier sufficient time to reflect on her behaviour and to undertake further consideration of her professional code of conduct and the code of ethics. It also allows her suitable opportunity to undertake educational courses and continue with personal counselling, both of which may be of assistance if she wishes to seek registration in the future. 167The Tribunal accepted the submission made by the Commission as to the need for a prohibition order, the purpose of which is to protect the public by preventing Ms Bergmeier from working in a health related field in the private or public sector for a period of 2 years. 168There was no argument put to the Tribunal in relation to costs by Ms Bergmeier and the Tribunal considered in the circumstances, that there was no reason not to follow the usual approach. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered that Ms Bergmeier pay the costs of the Commission. The Tribunal makes the following Orders: 169ORDERS (1)The Tribunal reprimands Ms Bergmeier in the strongest possible terms. (2)The Tribunal orders the cancellation of Ms Bergmeier's registration. (3)The Tribunal orders that Ms Bergmeier not be eligible to apply for review of that cancellation decision within 2 years from the date of this order. Any such application for review must be considered by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. (4)The Tribunal orders that Ms Bergmeier is prohibited, for a period of 2 years, from providing the following health services on a public, private or volunteer basis: (a)Mental Health Services (including counselling, assessments, and screening of patients, hypnosis, psychotherapy, and/or any other alternative health care or therapy); (b)Community health services; and, (c)Welfare Services necessary to implement (a) and (b). (5)The Tribunal orders that Ms Bergmeier pay the costs of the Health Care Complaints Commission. (6)The Tribunal makes a non-publication order in relation to any information identifying Ms Bergmeier's client, referred to in these Reasons as Client A and information identifying a former treating psychologist of Client A, referred to in these Reasons as Ms X. Annexure A ********** 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 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: 17 July 2014