QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Health Ombudsman v King [2020] QCAT 284
PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN (applicant)
v
ANDREANA FRANCESCA KING (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR061-19
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
13 May 2020 (ex tempore)
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member J Robertson
Assisted by:
Ms Mary Barnett
Ms Suzanne HarropMr Stephen Lewis
ORDERS: 1. In respect of Allegation 1, the respondent is found to have engaged in professional misconduct;
2. The respondent is reprimanded pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld);
3. The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of six months from the date of this order, pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld); and
4. Each party is to bear their own costs.
CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was convicted of one count of fraud by dishonest application of her employer’s property, and one count of stealing as a public servant and three counts of possession of dangerous drugs – where the respondent had no prior regulatory notifications in Queensland – where the respondent agrees her actions breached the code of ethics for nurses in Australia – where the respondent has shown remorse – whether suspension is an appropriate sanction
Health Ombudsman Act 2013, s 103, s 104, s 107
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 5
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:
Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
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 was first registered as a nurse on 14 September 2009 and she surrendered her registration on 28 May 2019. She was born in September 1965, so is now 55 years of age.
Pursuant to s 107 of the Act the applicant asks the Tribunal to find that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct and seeks to have her reprimanded pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Act, and pursuant to s 107(4), an order that she be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of six months from today’s date.
The respondent has cooperated with police in relation to the criminal matters which are at the heart of these disciplinary proceedings, and with the regulator, and in these proceedings in which she has filed a short response to the applicant’s submission, I infer that the only issue she has is with the reprimanded to which I will return later. The parties have filed an agreed statement of facts.
Relevantly, the respondent was employed as a registered nurse at the Cairns Base Hospital from June 2010 until 24 January 2017 when her employment was…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v King 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QCAT 284
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to assess the nature and gravity of the respondent's misconduct, taking into account her criminal convictions and the possession of dangerous drugs. The court also needed to consider the respondent's remorse and lack of prior regulatory notifications. In determining the appropriate sanction, the court was required to balance the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the nursing profession against the respondent's demonstrated remorse and potential for rehabilitation.
The court concluded that the respondent’s actions constituted professional misconduct, warranting a formal reprimand and disqualification from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for six months. The court held that while the respondent’s remorse and lack of prior notifications were mitigating factors, the gravity of her criminal conduct and possession of dangerous drugs necessitated a significant sanction. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the nursing profession and the need to deter similar misconduct in the future.
The court ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for six months. Additionally, each party was ordered to bear their own costs. The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, acknowledging the respondent’s remorse while emphasising the need to uphold professional standards and public trust in the nursing profession.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In respect of Allegation 1, the respondent is found to have engaged in professional misconduct;
2. The respondent is reprimanded pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld);
3. The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of six months from the date of this order, pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld); and
4. Each party is to bear their own costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.