Health Ombudsman v Needham

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Needham [2020] QCAT 315

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

STONE NEEDHAM

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR232-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2020

HEARING DATE:

2 September 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Robertson

Assisted by:

Ms Karalyn Huxhagen
Ms Kerrie Kensell

Mr Paul Murdoch

ORDERS:

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

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

3. Pursuant to s 107(4)(b) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is prohibited from working as a pharmacy assistant / dispensary assistant / dispensary technician, until such time the respondent obtains registration as a pharmacist under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) or corresponding law of a State or Territory of Australia.

4.   There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – MISCONDUCT IN PROFESSIONAL RESPECT – where the respondent was a pharmacist – where  the respondent dishonestly obtained quantities of controlled drugs from a pharmacy without valid endorsement for the purpose of self-administration – where the respondent did not engage in the proceedings – whether the Tribunal make orders proposed by the applicant

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

National Law S 41

Health Ombudsman v Ahmad [2015] NSWCATOD 103 Health Ombudsman v CLT [2019] QCAT 378

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 23 June 2019, the applicant Director referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (the Act). The referral contained six allegations of fact which the applicant submits amounts to professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct as defined in section 5 of the National Law. The respondent filed a response on 16 August in which he admits[1] all the allegations. He has also signed a Statement of Agreed Facts.[2] He has not filed a submission in these proceedings.

   [1]Hearing Brief (HB), Part C behind Tab 5.

   [2]HB, Tab 7, signed by respondent dated 2 April 2020.

2. At all material times, the respondent was registered as a pharmacist with the Pharmacy Board of Australia (the Board); a health service provider as defined by section 8 of the National Law; subject to the codes and guidelines approved by the Board including the Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics; subject to the requirements of the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1996 (Qld) (Poisons Regulations); and between January 2013 and 7 February 2013 was employed as the managing pharmacist at the Hope Island Pharmacy.

3. The respondent was born on 24 July 1981, so is presently 39 years of age. He holds a number of tertiary qualifications from Griffith University including a Bachelor of Pharmacy and a Masters of…