Health Ombudsman v DLP - [2025] QCAT 250

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v DLP [2025] QCAT 250

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

DLP

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR296-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Jones
Assisted by:
Dr J Jauncey-Cooke
Mr S Lewis
Mrs K Thomson

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1.     Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

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

3.     Pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is suspended until 30 October 2025.

4.     Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action imposed on 14 March 2024 by the Office of the Health Ombudsman is set aside.

5.     There be no order as to cost.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1.   The non-publication order made by the Deputy President on 14 April 2025 is to remain on foot in its current form.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was a registered nurse – where the respondent was convicted of domestic violence offences against his wife – whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent has demonstrated genuine insight and remorse – where the Tribunal accepts the conduct was out of character – where the respondent has been engaging in rehabilitation – where the Tribunal finds that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct – where there is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests the respondent is a risk to the safety and wellbeing of the general public – where the parties have come to an agreed position as to the findings and orders to be made by the Tribunal, but for the suspension period – where the live issue is to determine what orders ought to be made to send an appropriate message of general deterrence – whether the proposed suspension is excessive

Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243

Health Ombudsman v HCG [2020] QCAT 166
Health Ombudsman v ICN [2024] QCAT 246

Health Ombudsman v JTM [2020] QCAT 394

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

This proceeding is concerned with an application brought by the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (‘applicant’) against DLP (‘respondent’). The facts and circumstances that bring the respondent before the Tribunal can be summarised as follows.
The respondent was first granted registration by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (‘Board’) on 6 February 2020. At the material time, the respondent was 39 years of age and qualified as a registered nurse in accordance with section 269 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’). He was employed at Jimboomba Community Aged Care and Metro North Health on a casual basis.
On 14 March 2024, the respondent’s registration was suspended under immediate action taken by the Health Ombudsman (‘HO’). The subject offending involved acts of domestic violence perpetrated against the respondent’s wife.
The parties have filed a statement of facts that set out the following.[1] Sometime at or about 11.30am on 30 October 2023, the respondent’s wife was breastfeeding their newborn baby in the living room. The older son was away at daycare. The respondent had been drinking alcohol, and sometime during that morning, an argument ensued. The respondent then walked up to his wife and slapped her on both sides of her face. Unsurprisingly, the wife was not expecting such conduct and asked the respondent what she had done to deserve that physical consequence. In response to that query, the respondent grabbed the victim’s iPhone and smashed it until it was completely destroyed.
[1]Statement of Agreed Facts filed in the Tribunal on 6 February 2025, 2 [7]-[12].
The victim tried to leave, but the respondent pushed her to stop her. A somewhat aggravating feature is that the victim asked the respondent to call an ambulance for unrelated chest pain, but he refused. The situation continued when the respondent followed the victim into the bedroom and pushed her onto the bed. A particularly disturbing feature of this was that the victim was holding the baby in her arms at the time. The victim went to a neighbour’s house, who called triple zero.
While the victim and the police were at the hospital, the respondent returned home with his older son. The police arrived at the family home at around 6pm and arrested the respondent, who was then taken to the Beenleigh Watchhouse. As a consequence, the respondent was charged with the following offences:[2]
(a)two counts of common assault (domestic violence offence) pursuant to section 335 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (‘Criminal Code’);
(b)two counts of wilful damage (domestic violence offence) pursuant to section 469(1) of the Criminal Code; and
(c)one count of choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting (domestic violence offence) pursuant to section 315A(1) of the Criminal Code.
[2]Ibid 20 [13].
The respondent’s bail had been refused by the police and he was remanded in custody until 21 November 2023. He, in fact, spent some 23 days in custody before being released on bail.[3]
[3]Ibid 21 [14].
On 2 October 2024 in the Beenleigh District Court, the respondent pleaded guilty to and was sentenced in relation to the following charges:[4]
(a)one count of common assault (domestic violence offence); and
(b)two counts of wilful damage (domestic violence).
[4]Ibid [15].
Of significance is the fact that the charge of choking was not proceeded with. As a consequence of his plea, the respondent was sentenced to 12 months’ good behaviour bond with $500 recognisance. No conviction was recorded. Unsurprisingly, the 23 days spent in pre-sentence custody was a matter that was taken into account at sentence.
As a consequence of this conduct, the applicant seeks the following findings and orders:[5]
(a)pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HOAct’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;
(b)pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded;
(c)pursuant to section 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration be suspended until 30 October 2025;
(d)pursuant to section 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action imposed on the respondent’s registration by the Office of the Health Ombudsman on 14 March 2024 be set aside; and
(e)there be no order as to costs.
[5]Submissions of the Applicant filed in the Tribunal on 27 June 2025, 1-2 [3] (‘Applicant’s Submissions’).
The suspension sought would be effectively a further two months on top of the suspension imposed on 14 March 2024. In response, the respondent filed a written statement which is as follows:[6]
I [respondent’s full name] (the respondent), acknowledge the findings and accept responsibility for my actions as outlined in the agreed statement of facts. I deeply regret the impact of my conduct and understand that it fell short of the professional standards expected of a registered nurse.
Since that time, I have taken active steps towards rehabilitation, including completing the Responsible Men Program, and I remain committed to ongoing personal development to ensure such conduct does not occur again.
I have resumed living with my family in a stable environment, have complied fully with the current Domestic Violence Protection Order, and have maintained stable employment, although not within my preferred health sector.
I look forward to the opportunity to return to nursing so that I may once again contribute meaningfully to the profession and to the care of others.
I do not contest the proposed orders and respectfully submit myself to the Tribunal’s determination.
[6]Submissions of the Respondent filed in the Tribunal on 11 July 2025.
Aggravating features of the respondent’s conduct, in addition to the damage to the property, are:
(a)the prolonged nature of the aggressive physical conduct directed to the victim;
(b)that it took place in the presence of a very young child; and
(c)that the respondent initially refused the victim’s request for medical assistance.
The Tribunal is prepared to proceed on the basis that the respondent has expressed genuine remorse and insight in respect of his conduct and that it was otherwise out of character. In this regard, some of the sentencing remarks of the learned sentencing judge are instructive. In part, his Honour Judge Heaton observed that the respondent has an excellent work history as a registered nurse and was under considerable mental, physical and financial stress at the time.[7] He had been working three jobs at the time to help make ends meet.
[7]Transcript of Proceedings, R v DLP, (District Court of Queensland, 328/24, Judge Heaton KC, 2 October 2024), 1-2 ll 47-48 (‘Transcript of Sentence’).
It was also noted, to the respondent’s credit, that he had completed a 22-week program, being the Responsible Men Program, with Youth and Family Services. That said, domestic violence involving physical violence against women is conduct that involves an absolute departure from the standards expected by the public of a registered health practitioner. Accordingly, a finding of professional misconduct on the part of the respondent is warranted and as a consequence of that, it is considered that a reprimand must follow. It would seem that the only controversial element of the relief sought by the applicant is the suspension period.
Proceedings such as this are not for the purpose of punishing the respondent for his conduct. That has already been dealt with in the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court. The paramount considerations here are the protection of the public and ensuring, as far as is practicable, the public confidence in registered health practitioners. Here, there is no evidence to suggest that the respondent now poses a risk to the safety and wellbeing of the general public. Also, as abhorrent as the conduct was, it did not involve conduct directly associated with him carrying out his professional duties and obligations as a registered nurse.
The live issue is to determine what orders ought to be made to send an appropriate message of deterrence. On balance, it is considered that personal deterrence does not loom particularly large. The subject conduct seems to have been genuinely out of character and occurred at a time when the respondent was under considerable stress, as already mentioned. Also, one could rhetorically ask: if the consequences already suffered by the respondent as a result of his actions do not act as a sufficient level of personal deterrence, what would?
In advocating for the suspension sought, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant as follows:[8]
When deciding an appropriate sanction in this matter, the applicant submits the following factors ought to be taken into account:
(a)      The seriousness of the respondent’s conduct, including acts of domestic violence committed whilst the victim was holding their 3-week-old infant. The applicant also raises concerns regarding the offences being committed while the respondent was reportedly under the influence of alcohol.
(b)      The consideration of both personal and general deterrence, and the need to demonstrate to the community and other health practitioners that domestic violence will not be tolerated.
(c)      The respondent has taken some proactive steps towards addressing his behaviour, including participating in a Responsible Men Program. However, the applicant notes that the Program summary encourages the respondent to continue the reflective process and engage in further support.
(d)      The respondent has shown some insight and remorse for the conduct. He also appears to have taken responsibility for his actions, by not contesting the current proceedings.
(e)      The respondent appears to have a good employment history and obtained full-time employment in an unrelated work area following the conduct.
(f)      The respondent has no prior disciplinary or criminal history.
[8]Applicant’s Submissions (n 5), 21 [97].
The cases relied on in support of those submissions are Health Ombudsman v JTM [2020] QCAT 394, Health Ombudsman v ICN [2024] QCAT 246, Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243 and Health Ombudsman v HCG [2020] QCAT 166 (‘HCG’). As was fairly pointed out by the applicant, the first three of those cases involved conduct more serious than that involved here. In respect of HCG, its applicability is made difficult because of the mental health issues involved with the practitioner in that case.
As fair as the submissions made on the part of the applicant may be, they, in the view of the Tribunal, tend to understate the level of remorse and insight genuinely held on the part of the respondent and, also, what the learned sentencing judge described as an ‘excellent work history’.[9] Finally, in the view of the Tribunal, the submissions fail to give sufficient regard to the considerable stress the respondent was under at the time of the offending, where it seems tolerably clear that was a contributing factor in his uncharacteristic conduct.
[9]Transcript of Sentence (n 7), 1-2 l 47.
It is also to be noted that the respondent is indeed held in high regard in a reference which was tendered at the sentencing proceedings. It was said by the residential manager of the Jimboomba Community Aged Care Centre:[10]
I am writing this letter to inform you that [the respondent] transferred from our Narangba branch in October 2022 and has worked with us here at Jimboomba Community Aged Care in the capacity as a registered nurse, until Dec 2023.
During that time, he has been a reliable and honest worker, he has a calming persona, he is respectful to all staff and residents, he has been missed on the floor by his fellow nurses who had worked alongside him.
He was voted “the most calm under pressure” by his peers during our internal staff awards.
I would have no hesitation in him returning to us as a registered nurse, once his Ahpra registration and police checks are completed.
[10]See Hearing Brief, filed in the Tribunal on 21 July 2025, 115.
Leaving aside the somewhat ironical reference to his calmness under pressure, it is tolerably clear that the respondent is otherwise a dedicated and capable health practitioner.
The respondent’s agreement to the findings and orders sought is a significant matter to be taken into account. To depart from an agreed position is no small matter. That said, in this instance, the respondent does not appear to have had the benefit of any legal advice and, perhaps more importantly, the Tribunal is of the view that a suspension period in excess of 18 months is not warranted in all the circumstances of this case, including the sending of an appropriate message of general deterrence.

Orders

For the reasons given, the findings and orders of the Tribunal are as follows:
Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the HO Act, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.
Pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is suspended until 30 October 2025.
Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action imposed on 14 March 2024 by the Office of the Health Ombudsman is set aside.
There be no order as to cost.
The non-publication order made by the Deputy President on 14 April 2025 is to remain on foot in its current form.