Bhoola v Optometry Board of Australia

This matter concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of South Australia from a decision of a single judge, who had reviewed a disciplinary finding and sanction imposed by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) against Mr Bhoola, an optometrist. The dispute arose from Mr Bhoola's conduct in altering prescriptions formulated by a colleague, Ms McKernan, between February 2015 and January 2016. The Tribunal had found this conduct to constitute professional misconduct, deeming Mr Bhoola not a fit and proper person to be registered.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the appeal judge had erred in finding that the Tribunal had improperly considered Mr Bhoola's subsequent employment when determining sanction, and whether the appeal judge had correctly identified an error in the Tribunal's consideration of character evidence and the risk of recidivism. Further issues concerned whether the appeal judge had erred in finding that the Tribunal failed to consider the financial loss suffered by Mr Bhoola's employer, and whether the appeal judge had correctly concluded that the Tribunal's imposed sanction was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal judge had erred in finding that the Tribunal's expressed "reluctance" to suspend or cancel Mr Bhoola's registration was solely due to his subsequent employment, and also erred in concluding that the Tribunal misused character evidence. The Court also found that the appeal judge had erred in finding that the Tribunal did not consider the financial loss to the employer. However, the Court upheld the appeal judge's finding that the Tribunal's initial sanction was inadequate, and that Mr Bhoola's conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards requiring a substantial sanction to protect the public.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on grounds relating to the initial sanction and the inadequacy of the disqualification period. Leave to appeal was granted on grounds concerning the appeal judge's findings on employment and employer loss, but the appeal was dismissed. The Court concluded that, on review, no different sanction should be imposed, and Mr Bhoola's appeal was dismissed.