Health Ombudsman v Hoddle - [2022] QCAT 142

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Hoddle [2022] QCAT 142

PARTIES:

director of proceedings on behalf of the health ombudsman

(applicant)

v

Peter James hoddle

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR188-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2022 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

18 March 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Dr L Marry
Dr S Brown
P Davies CBE

ORDERS:

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

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

3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is cancelled.

4. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for 8 years from the date of this order.

5.     The respondent is prohibited from providing any health service until he obtains registration as a health practitioner

6.     Each party bears its own costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the respondent registered osteopath was convicted after trial of two counts of sexual assault and two counts of rape in relation to a patient – where the respondent also provided massage and counselling services to patients – where the respondent has engaged in the proceedings but continues to deny the conduct the subject of the allegations and criminal conviction – where the respondent has shown no insight or remorse – where the applicant contends for an indefinite disqualification period – whether a finite or indefinite disqualification period should be imposed – whether the respondent should be prohibited from providing any other health services until obtaining registration as a health practitioner

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 4, 107,

Health Practitioner Regulation, National Law Act s 5

Brigginshaw v Brigginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Health Care Complaints Commission v NG [2015] NSWCATOD 139

Health Ombudsman v Arora [2019] QCAT 200

Health Ombudsman v Asinas [2021] QCAT 306

Health Ombudsman v Chang [2022] QCAT 58

Health Ombudsman v DKM [2021] QCAT 50

Health Ombudsman v Duggirala [2021] QCAT 326

Medical Board of Australia v Griffiths (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 822

Medical Board v Thomas [2021] VCAT 229

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Tan [2016] VCAT 1653

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

C Templeton, instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

F Carroll, solicitor at Premium Legal Solutions

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

These disciplinary proceedings were referred to the Tribunal by the applicant Director on 28 June 2021. There is a statement of agreed and disputed facts signed by the legal representatives for both parties and dated 30 September 2021.
The respondent was, at all times material to the allegation the subject of the referral, a registered osteopath.
The respondent’s registration is currently suspended.[1] The respondent did not attend the hearing in person but was legally…

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 Hoddle 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: [2022] QCAT 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining a disciplinary action against Peter James Hoddle, a registered osteopath, following his criminal convictions for sexual assault and rape. The Health Ombudsman, acting on behalf of the Director, sought a range of sanctions including a reprimand, cancellation of registration, and a period of disqualification from applying for re-registration as a health practitioner. The Health Ombudsman also argued for a prohibition on the respondent providing any health services until he obtained registration as a health practitioner.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct constituted professional misconduct as it was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner and was inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration. The Tribunal accepted the submissions that the respondent's conduct was egregious, particularly due to the vulnerability of the victim, the protracted and serious nature of the offences, and the respondent's denial of the conduct and lack of remorse. The Tribunal considered various authorities and comparatives in determining the appropriate sanction. It ultimately decided on an 8-year disqualification period, reflecting the seriousness of the conduct and the lack of any evidence of rehabilitation, insight or remorse. The Tribunal also ordered that the respondent should not provide any health services until he obtained registration as a health practitioner. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the proceedings.

Orders