Health Ombudsman v Farley - [2025] QCAT 245

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Farley [2025] QCAT 245

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

KRISTY ELISHA FARLEY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR122-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Reid
Assisted by:
Prof A Hale
Dr I Fredericks
Ms M Ridley

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’), in respect of allegation one, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct as defined by subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’).

2. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(ii) of the HO Act, in respect of allegation two, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined by subparagraph (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law.

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

4. Pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is suspended for a period of three months from the date of this order.

5. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b)(ii) of the HO Act, conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of Annexure A to the Tribunal’s order.

6. The review period for the purpose of applying Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the National Law is nine months from the date the conditions come into effect.

7. Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the decision of the Health Ombudsman of 14 June 2023 to take immediate registration action in relation to the respondent is set aside.

8. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – CONVICTION OF OFFENCE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to several offences, most of which were drug charges and one of which was a traffic charge – where the parties filed joint submissions and agreed facts – whether the Tribunal is satisfied the proposed sanction falls within the permissible range

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376

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

The respondent, a pharmacist, pleaded guilty to offences involving the possession of drugs and related matters in the Magistrates Court on 2 November 2023. Ahpra was subsequently notified of the offending by authorities and sometime later, but outside the requisite period,[1] the respondent herself notified Ahpra of her offending. She faces disciplinary action relating to that misconduct.
[1]Pursuant to s 130 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).
The respondent was born on 26 November 1979 and was 43 years of age at the time of her offending.[2] She obtained:[3]
(a)a Bachelor of Health Science from Griffith University in 2008;
(b)a Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Science from Griffith University in 2012; and
(c)a Master of Pharmacy from Griffith University in 2013.
[2]Joint Submissions, filed in the Tribunal on 28 July 2025, 3 [9] (‘Joint Submissions’).
[3]Draft Statement of Agreed Facts, filed in the Tribunal on 30 May 2025, 1 [2].
It can be seen that she obtained her professional qualifications a little later in life than is often the case. It is tragic that in that circumstance she has engaged in the offending that she has.
Although she was charged with a significantly greater number of offences, she was ultimately convicted in the Magistrates Court of:[4]
(a)one count of possessing dangerous drugs pursuant to s 9(1) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) (‘Drugs Misuse Act’);
(b)one count of publishing or possessing instructions for producing dangerous drugs pursuant to s 8A of the Drugs Misuse Act;
(c)thirteen counts of offence to buy or possess S4 or S8 medicine or hazardous poisons pursuant to s 34 of the Medicine and Poisons Act 2019 (Qld); and
(d)one count of drive under the influence of liquor (motor vehicle/tram/train/vessel) pursuant to s 79(1)(a) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld).
[4]Joint Submissions (n 2) 4 [15(e)].
It is these offences to which she pleaded guilty and was fined $1,000 in relation to the drug charges and in relation to the traffic charge, she was disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers license for eight months and fined $800. No convictions were recorded.
The parties have filed joint submissions and agreed facts. It is important to understand that, consistent with Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376 (‘Martin’), where parties have agreed in joint submissions to proposed sanctions, the Tribunal will make orders consistent with those joint submissions unless it is felt that the penalties imposed are outside the appropriate range. I do not come to such a conclusion in this case.
There is, however, a matter that to me is of some concern. I do not think it is confined to submissions made in this case but is of more general application. In this case, the respondent was suspended, by way of immediate registration action, in June 2023. The effect of the agreed position is that she will be suspended for a further period of three months, to December 2025. In all, therefore, the period of suspension will be two years and six months. It is in my view, consistent with those who are assisting me on the panel, difficult to see why a penalty of two years and three months would not have been appropriate. One suspects that if this matter came before me in December 2025, that a submission would have been made that, despite then two years and six months of predetermination suspension, a further period of three months ought to be imposed.
In my view it is important that the Health Ombudsman and parties understand that what is of critical importance is the whole period of suspension, including the suspension imposed by immediate action and any further suspension imposed by the Tribunal. It is not the case that the Tribunal should impose an additional period of suspension merely as a kneejerk reaction to a finding that a registered health practitioner has offended such as in the way that has here occurred. Nevertheless, as I said, I do not think the proposed overall suspension of two years and six months is outside the permissible range and, consistent with Martin, I accede to the submissions that have been made.
In my view, it is also important to understand that many of the drugs found at the residence of the respondent, as set out in [11] of the statement of agreed facts, seem to have no commercial value and certainly are not drugs that would be sought on the black market. There are of course significant drugs such as Diazepam, Temazepam, Lorazepam and Cocaine Hydrochloride which did have such value.
I mention these matters because it seems to me that consideration of all of the array of drugs which the respondent was found with do not easily fit the pattern of a drug abuser or someone who seeks to gain from the sale of improperly possessed drugs. It seems rather that the respondent may have taken home with her, for some unknown reason, a bag of disused or returned drugs, such as is often possessed by pharmacists in the appropriate pharmacy setting. Be that as it may, it is clear that some of the drugs are of significant concern.
It is also to be noted that when the respondent was speaking to the Police at the time of the search of her residence, she informed them that it was standard practice to bring medications home. I do not accept that. She subsequently said that the medications had been taken home inadvertently. It does not seem to me that in making those statements she was being frank as one would have hoped. She also had in her possession a comprehensive book concerning the production of methamphetamines, including pages marked specifically with detailing the production process. Again, it is not clear to me why she had this because the search of her premises failed to locate any other equipment that might be used in such a process. Nevertheless, it is a significant concern that a pharmacist possesses such material, in addition to possession of the drugs and the book that was found.
At the criminal sentence, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that her partner exerted significant control over her and was involved in drug related activities. That may well be so however it does not significantly diminish the seriousness of her offending.
What is in her favour is that it was the respondent herself who notified Police through Crime Stoppers of her partner’s drug offending. She apparently did this after doing a Google search of him and finding out that he had committed serious offences and had a history of domestic violence. In that circumstance, it was perhaps doubly unusual that she would remain in possession of the drugs that she did. Perhaps she simply did not foresee that a Police search of her residence would result. Be that as it may, there is no proper explanation as to why the drugs were in the unit. But in my view, it is a significant ameliorating factor that she herself notified the Police of her partner’s drug use which resulted in the Police coming to her apartment.
I accept also that on the material before me it is difficult to establish exactly the level of the respondent’s insight and remorse. It is not clear what steps she has taken to seek to overcome the difficulties that have blighted her professional career.
In that circumstance, part of the joint submissions is that conditions ought to be imposed upon her requiring supervision by an approved registered pharmacist for a period of at least six months after she returns to practice. In my view, such a condition is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The professional assessors assisting me with this proceeding have advised that, in their view, it is highly likely that supervision would effectively involve her being employed only in a capacity similar to that as an intern, which will have a significant financial impact on her.
Consistent with the parties’ agreed position, I make the following orders:
Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), in respect of allegation one, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct as defined by subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’).
Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(ii) of the HO Act, in respect of allegation two, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined by subparagraph (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law.
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 for a period of three months from the date of this order.
Pursuant to s 107(3)(b)(ii) of the HO Act, conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of Annexure A to the Tribunal’s order.
The review period for the purpose of applying Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the National Law is nine months from the date the conditions come into effect.
Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the decision of the Health Ombudsman of 14 June 2023 to take immediate registration action in relation to the respondent is set aside.
No order as to costs.