Health Ombudsman v APR - [2025] QCAT 103

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v APR [2025] QCAT 103

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

APR

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR130-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President
Assisted by:
Ms S Hopkins
Mr S Lewis
Dr P Glazebrook

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is cancelled.

4. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for twenty-four months from the date of this decision.

5. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was an enrolled nurse – where the respondent pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, several domestic violence offences – where the respondent is disengaged from these proceedings – whether the conduct constitutes professional misconduct – where it was accepted in the criminal proceedings that the respondent’s mental health impairments were such that her moral culpability was reduced and general deterrence assumed less relevance – whether the respondent should be disqualified

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council & Fleishmann [2005] EWHC 87
Craig v South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545
Health Care Complaints Commission v Haasbroek [2018] NSWCATOD 177
Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630
Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243
Health Ombudsman v HCG [2020] QCAT 166
Health Ombudsman v JTM [2020] QCAT 394
Health Ombudsman v Niem Quoc Tang [2020] QCAT 165
Medical Board of Australia v Bromeley [2018] QCAT 163
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391

Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the referral about?

On 30 May 2024 the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (‘Director’) filed a referral alleging the respondent had been convicted on 15 December 2023 in the District Court of Queensland at Southport of six criminal offences. The offences, which are all domestic violence offences, were committed in a single course of conduct in the evening of one day. There is a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v APR and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCAT 103
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Ombudsman brought disciplinary proceedings against an enrolled nurse, APR, before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. APR had been convicted of several domestic violence offences and was disengaged from these proceedings. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether APR’s conduct constituted professional misconduct and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary outcome.

The tribunal examined the nature of APR’s misconduct, her mental health condition, and the principles guiding disciplinary decisions in the health care sector. The tribunal accepted that APR's moral culpability was reduced due to her mental health impairments, but also recognised the importance of maintaining professional standards. In light of the gravity of the offences and the potential risk to public safety, the tribunal concluded that APR’s conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct.

The tribunal further found that APR should be reprimanded, her registration cancelled, and she should be disqualified from applying for registration for twenty-four months. The tribunal considered the need to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the nursing profession, alongside the recognition of APR’s mental health issues. The tribunal did not make an order as to costs.

This decision underscores the tribunal’s role in balancing the need for professional accountability with considerations of individual circumstances, particularly mental health. The outcome reflects the tribunal’s emphasis on public safety and the maintenance of professional standards in health care.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is cancelled.

4. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for twenty-four months from the date of this decision.

5. No order as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.