Health Ombudsman v Hatten - [2023] QCAT 321

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Hatten [2023] QCAT 321

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

TREVOR PETER HATTEN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR256-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 April 2023 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

20 April 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

The Honourable P J Murphy SC, Judicial Member

Assisted by:

Ms Karen Butler
Dr Wendy Grigg

Mr Justin Kenardy

ORDERS:

1.     Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013, the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the respondent is disqualified for applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for six months from the date of this order.

4.     There is no order as to cost.

5.     The non-publication order made on 20 February 2023 is set aside.

6. Pursuant to section 66(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, publication of:

(a)     The contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;

(b)     evidence given before the Tribunal; and

(c)     any order made or reasons given by the tribunal:

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the patient, or any family member of the patient, save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings and for the Office of the Health Ombudsman to provide information to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in the exercise of the Health Ombudsman’s functions under the Health Ombudsman Act2013 (Qld).

7.     Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by a judicial member, Tribunal member, any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal, the staff of the Tribunal registry, or the parties to this proceeding.

8.     It is directed that the name of the patient contained in the Tribunal’s reasons be anonymised by pseudonym and the pseudonym be used in any publication of the Tribunal’s reasons, save publication to the applicant, the respondent, and the patient.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PSYCHOLOGISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – where the applicant Ombudsman has referred the respondent practitioner to the Tribunal seeking disciplinary findings and orders – where the applicant alleges and the respondent admits that he engaged in inappropriate communications and personal interactions with a patient – where the conduct was of a sexual nature – where the respondent accepts that his conduct amounts to professional misconduct – where the parties agree that the respondent should be reprimanded – where the applicant seeks that the respondent be excluded from practice for 6 months – where the respondent contends that a gender restriction and mentorship should be imposed – where the respondent’s registration is now no longer current – whether the…

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 Hatten 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: [2023] QCAT 321
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Health Ombudsman brought proceedings against Trevor Peter Hatten, a psychologist, alleging professional misconduct. The Tribunal found that Mr Hatten had engaged in inappropriate communications and personal interactions with a patient, Ms James, of a sexual nature, which amounted to professional misconduct. The parties agreed that Mr Hatten should be reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for six months from the date of the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal noted that the conduct was serious, had an element of grooming, and involved a vulnerable patient. Although Mr Hatten had undertaken targeted education addressing his ethical obligations and appropriate boundaries in practice, the Tribunal considered that a prohibition on applying for registration was necessary to provide a message to the community and to Ms James that the conduct was regarded as a serious matter.

The Tribunal set aside the non-publication order made on 20 February 2023 and directed that the patient’s name be anonymised by pseudonym and the pseudonym be used in any publication of the Tribunal’s reasons, save publication to the applicant, the respondent, and the patient. The Tribunal also prohibited the publication of any material affected by the non-publication order without an order of the Tribunal, except by a judicial member, Tribunal member, any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal, the staff of the Tribunal registry, or the parties to this proceeding. The Tribunal did not make any order as to cost.

Orders