Health Ombudsman v ANP

The applicant, the Health Ombudsman, commenced proceedings against the respondent, a registered medical practitioner, under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (“the Act”) alleging that he engaged in professional misconduct. The Tribunal had to determine whether the respondent’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct, and if so, what sanction should be imposed. The applicant alleged that the respondent’s conduct, in that he had been convicted of one count of distributing child exploitation material contrary to the Criminal Code s 228C(1), amounted to professional misconduct. The Tribunal accepted the parties’ agreed statement of facts, and found that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct. The Tribunal accepted the submission of the applicant that the respondent’s conduct fell substantially below the conduct expected of a medical practitioner of an equivalent level of training and experience. The Tribunal found that the respondent’s conduct was appropriately characterised as professional misconduct. The Tribunal considered the appropriate sanction to be imposed. The health and safety of the public are paramount.[a] Disciplinary proceedings are protective, not punitive in nature.[b] Relevant considerations generally include both personal and general deterrence, the maintenance of professional standards and the maintenance of public confidence.[c] Insight and remorse on the part of the respondent are also relevant.[d] The fitness to practice of the respondent is to be assessed at the time of the hearing.[e] The Tribunal decided that the appropriate sanction was a reprimand, and that the respondent’s registration be suspended until 27 April 2022. The Tribunal set aside the applicant’s decision to suspend the respondent’s registration on 18 September 2019, and ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

[a]Health Ombudsman Act 2013, s 4(1).
[b]Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149 at [122].
[c]Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [35]; Health Ombudsman v Kimpton [2018] QCAT 405 at [79].
[d]Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163 at [140] – [143].
[e]Pharmacy Board of Australia v Thomas [2011] QCAT 637 at [31].