Health Ombudsman v Le Garde

The respondent, a registered nurse, was the subject of disciplinary proceedings brought by the Health Ombudsman. The Ombudsman alleged that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct by failing to disclose charges and convictions for criminal offences to the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. The conduct came to light following an anonymous tip. The respondent had a history of illicit drug use and had been subject to conditions on her general registration by the Board. The respondent had failed to comply with these conditions and had applied for and been granted non-practising registration. Both parties agreed that the conduct amounted to professional misconduct. The Ombudsman sought a six-month suspension of the respondent's registration, while the respondent argued that her existing non-practising registration should be considered a de facto suspension and that any additional suspension would be punitive.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the respondent's failure to disclose charges and convictions, coupled with her non-compliance with Board-imposed conditions, constituted professional misconduct under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013. The Tribunal also had to determine the appropriate disciplinary action to impose on the respondent. The respondent contended that her non-practising registration should be taken into account when considering any additional period of suspension, while the Ombudsman argued for a six-month suspension to maintain public confidence in the nursing profession. The Tribunal considered the severity of the respondent's conduct, her history of drug use, and the need for appropriate disciplinary measures to uphold professional standards.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct constituted professional misconduct. It noted the seriousness of the charges and the respondent's failure to disclose them, as well as her history of non-compliance with conditions imposed by the Board. The Tribunal concluded that a reprimand and a six-month suspension of the respondent's registration were appropriate to ensure public protection and maintain professional standards. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that her non-practising registration should be considered a de facto suspension, finding that this did not sufficiently address the need for public accountability and deterrence. The Tribunal ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and that her registration be suspended for six months. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs for the proceeding.