Health Ombudsman v Lodington, Sarah-Jane - [2023] QCAT 530

[2023] QCAT 530

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

RINAUDO, Judicial Member

Assisted by:

MR BRIMSTONE

MS GEDDES

MS RIDLEY

No OCR 195 of 2021

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Applicant

LODINGTON, Sarah-Jane

Respondent

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION

JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an application by the Director of Proceedings on behalf on the Health Ombudsman against Sarah-Jane Lodington. The Tribunal is constituted today by myself, Judicial Member Rinaudo, Mr Brimstone, Ms Geddes and Ms Ridley. The matter is to be heard on the papers.
The Respondent was convicted of:
(a)two counts of abuse of office;
(b)one count of taking a prohibited thing into a corrective services facility; and
(c)one count of disclosing confidential information.
The Respondent also failed to maintain professional boundaries with two prisoners while she was working in Palen Creek Correctional Centre.
At the time of the conduct, the Respondent held general and specialist registration with the Psychology Board of Australia as a psychologist since 7 February 2006, and was a registered health practitioner for the purposes of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘the HO Act') and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘the National Law’).
On 27 March 2019, a complaint was received that the Respondent had been charged with criminal offences that related to her employment. The parties have agreed to a statement of agreed and disputed facts, and a further statement of agreed and disputed facts and issues, and there is no factual issue that remains in dispute that needs to be resolved. The Respondent has admitted the conduct and the Applicant relies on the formal admissions made by the Respondent. It now falls to the Tribunal to determine the nature of the offending and also the disciplinary sanction to be applied.
The Respondent was convicted in the Southport Magistrates Court of four criminal offences relating to a failure to maintain professional boundaries with two prisoners at Palen Creek Correctional Centre. Ultimately, in relation to the offending, the Respondent was convicted and ordered to serve a period of two years’ probation and no conviction was recorded. This sentence followed her plea of guilty in respect of the matter.
In the written submissions of the Applicant, the nature of the offences is set out in paragraph [28] and following, and involved an inappropriate personal relationship with two inmates, including engaging in text messaging, kissing and hugging, and maintaining a sexual relationship after one of the prisoners had been released from the Grafton Prison.
In the context of the Respondent’s employment in the correctional facility as a psychologist, the Tribunal considers that the offending is extremely serious and concerning. The Tribunal is asked to categorise the conduct, and the Tribunal is satisfied, based on the submissions that have been made in relation to the offending and also the authorities that have been provided, that the offending should be categorised as professional misconduct.
It was submitted that the Respondent’s conduct was a serious departure from the professional standard expected of a psychologist, and it constitutes a breach of the Code of Ethics, including the principles that are enumerated in the submissions at paragraph [40], sub-paragraphs (a) to (g). In imposing a sanction, the Tribunal is aware the disciplinary proceedings are protective and not punitive in nature and, as I said, in the context of the offending, considers that the offending amounts to professional misconduct.
It should be noted that since suspension of the Respondent’s registration, the Respondent has:
(a)completed a course on professional boundaries — Professional Boundaries – A Health Professional’s Guide — in 2021;
(b)built a personal support network around herself; and
(c)has undertaken treatment with Dr Matthew McKenzie, a clinical psychologist.
It is submitted that the Respondent has gained some insight into her conduct; although, it is also submitted that this is a late development of insight given the denial in the Respondent’s previous responses.
The Tribunal has taken into account the relevance of deterrence, both general deterrence and specific deterrence, and it is noted that the Tribunal has taken into account the submission that general deterrence is the more important factor in this case. Psychologists treat vulnerable people; there is inherent imbalance in the professional relationship. If this is allowed to transfer into a personal relationship, the potential exists for damage to a client, and that cannot obviously be understated.
It was also submitted that a suspension was not necessary in the circumstances because the Respondent has already been suspended from practice for a period of four years, given that her registration was suspended by the Health Ombudsman in October 2019. To now impose a further period of suspension, even a short period, would be punitive. The undertaking of intensive and targeted education will bolster the Respondent’s understanding about appropriate professional boundaries and undertaking a period of mentoring will reinforce the lessons learned in the targeted education.
It is also important to note that the Tribunal has taken into account the personal circumstances of the Respondent in relation to issues relating to domestic violence and other factors impacting on her personally. It is noted that a reprimand is not a trivial penalty; it has the potential for serious adverse implications to a professional person. These sanctions that are sought includes that the Respondent be subject to a schedule of conditions — a copy of the conditions has been provided — and it must be said that the Tribunal is comforted by the fact that the Respondent will continue to receive competent mentoring and attend for treatment with her treating practitioners in the terms set out in the schedule of conditions.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sanction submitted is appropriate and orders are made as follows:
1. pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the HO Act, the conduct of the Respondent in allegations 1, 2 and 3 constitutes professional misconduct;
2. pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded;
3. pursuant to s 107(3)(b) of the HO Act, conditions be imposed on the practitioner’s registration that the Respondent complete mentoring and attend for treatment with her treating practitioner in terms of the attached schedule;
4. pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act that the immediate registration order imposed by the Health Ombudsman on 9 October 2021 is set aside; and
5. no order as to costs.