QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Health Ombudsman v CJJ [2020] QCAT 513
PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN (applicant)
v
CJJ (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR333-18
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
2 December 2020 (Ex Tempore)
HEARING DATE:
2 December 2020
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member J Robertson
Assisted by:
Mr Peter Caldwell
Ms Kathleene DowerDr Anne Fitzgerald
ORDERS:
1. The respondent behaved in a way which constituted professional misconduct;
2. The respondent is reprimanded;
3. The respondent is prohibited from providing any health service until such time as the respondent obtains registration as a health practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) or corresponding law of another State or Territory of Australia; and
4. There be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where the respondent is a medical radiation practitioner – where the respondent’s registration has been suspended – where the respondent convicted of various fraud and stealing offences – sanctions available to the Tribunal when the respondent is no longer registered – whether a prohibition order should be made pursuant to s 107(4)(b) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 79.
Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 107(4)(b).
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ss 1, 5.Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.
Health Ombudsman v ADV [2020] QCAT 364.
Health Ombudsman v Antley [2016] QCAT 472.
Health Ombudsman v Corocher [2020] QCAT 47.
Health Ombudsman v CLT [2019] QCAT 378.
Health Ombudsman v Drinkwater [2020] QCAT 203.
Health Ombudsman v Joy [2020] QCAT 202.
Health Ombudsman v Martin [2020] QCAT 350.
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
C Templeton of counsel, instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:
No appearance
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant director referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal on 21 December 2018. The referral contained three allegations, only one of which, allegation 1, is now pursued, for reasons that will become obvious.
Allegation 1 is an allegation that the respondent engaged in professional conduct in that, while holding registration as a medical radiation practitioner, he engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law). On 20 May 2016, he appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to 15 charges relating to the stealing, forging and unauthorised filling of prescriptions for morphine and on one occasion obtaining Sertraline without authority. A conviction was recorded for all offences. The Magistrate sentenced the respondent to an 18-month probation order with conditions including one that he submit to such “medical, psychiatric or psychological assessment and treatment as directed by the authorised Corrective Services officer...”.
On 8 November 2016, the respondent appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to a number of further criminal charges, 27 in total, also relating to stealing,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v CJJ 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QCAT 513
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal considered various sanctions, including a fine, disqualification from applying for registration, and a prohibition on providing health services. Given CJJ's history of offending and lack of recent evidence regarding his current health and insight into his behaviour, the Tribunal determined that a reprimand and a prohibition on providing health services until he obtains registration were appropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that its primary concern was the protection of public health and safety, and the prohibition order would remain in effect until CJJ met the stringent requirements for registration under the National Law. The Tribunal also ordered that there be no order as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.