Health Ombudsman v Harirchian

In the matter of Health Ombudsman v Harirchian, the Health Ombudsman sought to suspend the respondent's registration following his conviction for sexual assault of a female patient. The respondent, a registered general practitioner, had been sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended after three months. The Health Ombudsman imposed conditions on the respondent’s practice, which were later reviewed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). QCAT determined that the conditions should remain but the registration should not be suspended. The Health Ombudsman sought leave to appeal QCAT's decision, arguing that QCAT had misconstrued the phrase "in the public interest" in s 58(1)(d) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) and had applied the public interest test incorrectly.

The court was required to determine whether QCAT had erred in its interpretation of s 58(1)(d) and in the application of the public interest test. This involved examining the statutory language and context, as well as understanding the purpose and scope of the discretionary powers conferred by the Act. The court had to decide if the suspension of the respondent's registration was indeed in the public interest, considering the conviction for a serious criminal offence and its implications for public confidence in the health care system.

The court found that QCAT had indeed erred in its interpretation and application of s 58(1)(d). The court held that QCAT had failed to appreciate the full scope of the phrase "in the public interest" and had considered irrelevant factors in its assessment. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside QCAT’s orders, and directed that the respondent’s registration be suspended forthwith. The respondent was also ordered to pay the Health Ombudsman's costs of and incidental to the application and the appeal.