Health Ombudsman v Sandhu - [2021] QCAT 292

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Sandhu [2021] QCAT 292

PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

RAJEEP SINGH SANDHU

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR271-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

7 September 2021

HEARING DATE:

6 September 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC
Assisted by:
Dr J Cavanagh
Dr G Kelly,
Ms J Stuckey

ORDERS:

1.       The conduct of the respondent in the respect alleged in the referral was professional misconduct.

2.       The respondent is reprimanded.

3.       The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of two years from this decision.

4. The respondent is prohibited from providing any health service to a person under the age of eighteen years until such time as he obtains registration as a health practitioner under the National Law, or the corresponding law of a state or territory of Australia.

5.       The parties bear their own costs of this proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – CONVICTION OF OFFENCE – possession of child exploitation material – small amount – no evidence of remorse or insight – practitioner did not engage with proceeding – no longer registered – sanction.

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 103(1)(a), s 104

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Buckley [2010] QCAT 392
Health Ombudsman v Mak [2019] QCAT 24
Health Ombudsman v Creagh-Scott [2019] QCAT 69
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Hindley [2019] VR 22
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Brearley [2012] QCAT 323

Applicant:

Mr M Price of the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a referral by the applicant of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (“the Act”) s 103(1)(a), s 104. Under s 126 of the Act, I constitute the Tribunal, and am sitting with assessors Dr J Cavanagh, Dr G Kelly and Ms J Stuckey in accordance with the Act.[1]
[1]Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 126. For their function, see s 127.
The respondent is and was at the relevant time a registered medical practitioner, and hence a registered health practitioner for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) (“the National Law”). The applicant alleges that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct, or in the alternative unprofessional conduct, in that he has been convicted of one count of possessing child exploitation material contrary to the Criminal Code, s 228D. The Tribunal has been provided by the applicant with material about the matter, and submissions in writing. The respondent, who is currently in immigration detention, has not engaged with the disciplinary process, has not filed a response to the referral, and did not respond to an invitation to attend the hearing by telephone or videolink. There is no material before the Tribunal from the respondent.

Background

From the material before the…

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.

Continue reading Health Ombudsman v Sandhu

Details

AGLC: Health Ombudsman v Sandhu [2021] QCAT 292
Case: [2021] QCAT 292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this disciplinary proceeding under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the Health Ombudsman has referred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal the conviction of the respondent, a former medical practitioner, of possession of child exploitation material. The Tribunal found that the conduct amounted to professional misconduct and imposed sanctions, including a two-year disqualification from applying for registration as a health practitioner, and a prohibition on providing any health service to a person under the age of eighteen until he has obtained registration as a health practitioner. The respondent, who has not engaged with the disciplinary process, did not appear or make any submissions.

The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate sanction to impose. The Tribunal considered relevant authorities and submissions by the applicant. The Tribunal decided that the appropriate sanction was a two-year disqualification from applying for registration as a health practitioner, and a prohibition on providing any health service to a person under the age of eighteen until he has obtained registration as a health practitioner.

The Tribunal found that the conduct of the respondent amounted to professional misconduct because it fell substantially below the conduct expected of a registered medical practitioner of equivalent level or training and experience. The Tribunal considered that the seriousness of the offence, and the absence of mitigating features, warranted a two-year disqualification from applying for registration as a health practitioner, and a prohibition on providing any health service to a person under the age of eighteen until he has obtained registration as a health practitioner. The Tribunal decided that the other sanctions sought by the applicant were not appropriate in the circumstances. The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is reprimanded and that the parties bear their own costs of this proceeding.

Orders