QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Health Ombudsman v XPW [2021] QCAT 403
PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN (applicant)
v
XPW (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR192-20
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
1 December 2021
HEARING DATE:
2 June 2021
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judge Allen QC, Deputy President
Assisted by:
Dr J Quinn AM
Dr J Cavanagh
Ms A BlairORDERS: 1. Pursuant to section 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 section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.
3. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of 12 months.
CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where the respondent is a medical practitioner – where the respondent pleaded guilty to offences of making child exploitation material and possessing child exploitation material – whether such conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – what sanction should be imposed
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where an interim non-publication order was made to avoid endangering the respondent’s mental health – whether the non-publication order should continue to have effect
Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 66, s 103, s 104
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 5
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66
Craig v Medical Board of South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545
Health Ombudsman v Asinas; Asinas v Medical Board of Australia [2021] QCAT 306Health Ombudsman v Franklin [2021] QCAT 186
Legal Services Commissioner v McLeod [2020] QCAT 371
Legal Services Commissioner v Yarwood [2015] QCAT 208
Medical Board v Black (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 892Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Evans [2016] QCAT 77
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
C J Lloyd of the Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:
R M O’Gorman instructed by HWL Ebsworth
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
This is a referral of a health service complaint against the respondent, pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (HO Act), by the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman.
The respondent is aged 60 years. He is an experienced medical practitioner, having obtained the degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery in his country of birth in 1984.
The conduct the subject of the referral did not occur in the course of the respondent’s practice as a medical practitioner. The conduct involved the commission of criminal offences involving child exploitation material (CEM).
The parties agree as to the facts of the conduct the subject of the referral, that the conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct and that the respondent should be reprimanded. The real issue in dispute is whether the respondent, who has…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v XPW 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
- [2021] QCAT 403
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Considering the purposes of sanction, including protection of the public, maintenance of professional standards, and deterrence, the Tribunal decided on a reprimand and a disqualification from applying for registration as a health practitioner for 12 months. The Tribunal acknowledged mitigating factors such as the respondent's cooperation with authorities, voluntary cessation of practice, and remorse. However, it concluded that a period of preclusion from practice was necessary to achieve the protective purposes of sanction. The Tribunal also upheld the continuation of a non-publication order to avoid endangering the respondent's mental health.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.