MEDICAL BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and WHITE
[2007] WASAT 118
•30 April 2007
MEDICAL BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and WHITE [2007] WASAT 118
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2007] WASAT 118 | |
| MEDICAL ACT 1894 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | VR:13/2007 | 30 APRIL 2007 | |
| Coram: | JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT) MR S JONGENELIS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) PROF M KAMIEN (SESSIONAL MEMBER) DR B MENDELAWITZ (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) | 30/04/07 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Finding practitioner is unfit to practise Removal of practitioner's name from the register Costs awarded against practitioner | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MEDICAL BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CRAIG STEPHEN WHITE |
Catchwords: | Professions Medical practitioner Removal of practitioner's name from register Conviction of offence of manufacture of a prohibited drug |
Legislation: | Medical Act 1894 (WA), s 13(2), s 13(3b) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : VOCATIONAL REGULATION ACT : MEDICAL ACT 1894 (WA) CITATION : MEDICAL BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA and WHITE [2007] WASAT 118 MEMBER : JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT)
- MR S JONGENELIS (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
PROF M KAMIEN (SESSIONAL MEMBER)
DR B MENDELAWITZ (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)
- Applicant
AND
CRAIG STEPHEN WHITE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Professions - Medical practitioner - Removal of practitioner's name from register - Conviction of offence of manufacture of a prohibited drug
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Medical Act 1894 (WA), s 13(2), s 13(3b)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Result:
Finding practitioner is unfit to practise
Removal of practitioner's name from the register
Costs awarded against practitioner
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms F Vernon
Respondent : Self-represented
Solicitors:
Applicant : Tottle Partners
Respondent : Self-represented
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 The Medical Board of Western Australia applied for the removal of Dr Craig Stephen White's name from the register of medical practitioners maintained under the Medical Act 1894 (WA) on the ground of his conviction for drug-related offences.
2 The Tribunal considered the submissions of the parties and ordered the removal of the practitioner's name from the register. The Tribunal considered that although the practitioner had worked hard to recover his reputation and good character, the conviction was a serious one and antithetical to the standards expected of a medical practitioner by the medical profession and the public.
3 The Tribunal noted that it would be open to the practitioner to apply for reregistration in the future.
Issue
4 The issue in this proceeding is whether the practitioner's conviction of offences involving the manufacture of a prohibited drug amounted to a breach of s 13(2) of the Medical Act 1894 (WA).
Facts
5 The Medical Board of Western Australia (Board) applied to the Tribunal for the removal of Craig Stephen White's name from the register of medical practitioners. The Board made the application on the ground that Dr White's conviction in the District Court of Western Australia on 1 September 2006, for offences involving the manufacture of a prohibited drug amounted to a breach of s 13(2) of the Medical Act 1894 (WA) (Medical Act). (At the time of the hearing in the Tribunal, Dr White was prosecuting an appeal against sentence following conviction in the Court of Appeal).
6 Prior to his conviction in the District Court, Dr White appeared before the Board in May 2006 on a separate application to be re-registered as a practitioner following earlier disciplinary proceedings.
7 At this re-registration hearing, Dr White did not inform the Board that he had recently pleaded guilty to the offences in question and was awaiting sentencing on them. While the Board did not rely on this conduct at the re-registration hearing in support of its present application
(Page 4)
- for the removal of Dr White's name from the register, it sought to rely on the conduct to counter Dr White's suggestions in the Tribunal that he had recovered his character and was fit to remain registered as a medical practitioner. Dr White explained that at the re-registration hearing he had not intended to deceive the Board, but believed he was only obliged to answer the Board's direct questions. He now states that it was a mistake not to have told the Board of his guilty plea.
Findings
8 The following remarks are an edited version of what the President said orally on behalf of the Tribunal when findings were made and penalty was imposed by the Tribunal on 30 April 2007.
9 The Tribunal has had the opportunity to consider the evidence and the submissions that have been made following the taking of the evidence and to consider what the result in this application should be. In the end, the Tribunal finds the allegation and ground of complaint here made out and considers that, in the circumstances, there really is no alternative but that Dr White have his name removed from the register. I will say a little bit more about the reasons we have come to this decision now and what the future may hold for him.
10 The application to the Tribunal is made on the sole ground that Dr White was convicted in the District Court on 1 September 2006 of offences involving the manufacture of a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) and was sentenced to a term of four years' imprisonment. Subsection 13(2) of the Medical Act relevantly provides, where it appears to the Board that a medical practitioner has been convicted of an offence in this State or elsewhere, that, in the opinion of the Board, renders that person unfit to practise as a medical practitioner, the Board may allege to the State Administrative Tribunal that disciplinary action should be taken against the medical practitioner for that reason.
11 Section 13(3b) then goes on to provide that the Tribunal may, on dealing with an allegation under subsection (2), order the removal of the name of the medical practitioner from the register or order that the registration of the medical practitioner be suspended. Here there is no doubt about the conviction, and that has not been the issue in this case. The question is whether that particular conviction renders Dr White unfit to practise as a medical practitioner.
(Page 5)
12 The Tribunal accepts that it is a very serious conviction. The offence, as we have been told, was one that involved Dr White manufacturing the prohibited drug. We are told he was not a user of it and, in that sense, one can only assume, as I think the papers show, his conduct involved a degree of gain. Whatever the outcome of Dr White's appeal against sentence in the Court of Appeal may be, the Tribunal holds the view that conviction of an offence like this is, as it was put by counsel for the Board, totally antithetical to the standards that the public expects a practitioner to uphold, and indeed, that the profession of medicine expects a practitioner to uphold; so really there is no alternative but that the practitioner's name be removed from the register.
13 It has been raised in the course of the proceedings today, particularly by Dr White, that he has worked hard to recover his reputation and good character. The Tribunal is heartened to have learned from Dr White about the hard work he has done in terms of rehabilitation. We have noted how he has assessed the years 2002 and 2003, as his "rock bottom years", and we have noted the various references and reports that suggest he is on his way back to good health.
14 The question of what happened at the re-registration hearing of the Board is of some significance, even though it is not the subject of a separate allegation in these proceedings. To say the least, it was unfortunate that Dr White did not tell the Board about the matter of his conviction at that time. It seems to us that it was not a simple case of omission, forgetfulness or the like, but that Dr White took a rather narrow approach to what he needed to tell the Board and what he did not need to tell it. It was obviously in his mind - it could not have been otherwise - that he had pleaded guilty to the offence and was awaiting sentencing. He was concerned as to what that might be.
15 Dr White told the Tribunal that he would have told the Board if it had asked him. He accepted that it would have been something relevant to the Board's consideration of his re-registration application. There is absolutely no doubt it would have been quite relevant; whether or not the Board might have reached the same decision on the re-registration question one cannot say, and we do not need to decide that today. This is not a re-registration hearing.
16 The simple position is this, though, that the conviction raises the question why there should not be removal of the practitioner's name from the register. The sort of conviction involved is not one that should simply cause the suspension of a medical practitioner. Those involved in the
(Page 6)
- profession of medicine understand that this sort of conduct cannot be carried on consistently with the ethical practice of medicine. So Dr White's name will need to be removed from the register.
17 Ultimately, as has been pointed out by counsel for the Board, it remains open under the Medical Act for Dr White, at an appropriate juncture, to apply to the Board to be re-registered. This Tribunal is not the primary registration authority or primary re-registration authority. The registration boards - there are many in the State and the Medical Board is but one of them - have that primary function. So Dr White will have the opportunity - as I say, at the appropriate juncture, whatever the future holds in relation to his sentencing appeal in the Court of Appeal - to go back to the Board and lay out before it, as he has largely done before the Tribunal, the efforts that he has made to rehabilitate himself, recover his good reputation and his good character, to be able to establish his capacity to practise medicine in one form or another, and to satisfy the Board that it is appropriate in all the circumstances for him to have his registration back again.
18 The Tribunal makes no further comment about that. Matters like this can sometimes come back to the Tribunal, depending on what the registration authority decides, and that would then be our function, if ever it did, to consider the matter then. What Dr White can be assured about, in terms of his request for information and his statement to the Tribunal, is that he will have that opportunity in due course. The Tribunal would only go so far as to say this - that the provision is there to reapply, presumably for people in his circumstances, and he should not be discouraged from making the application.
Orders
19 The Tribunal found and ordered:
1. By reason of his conviction in the District Court of Western Australia on 1 September 2006, of the offence, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), of the manufacture of methylamphetamine, the practitioner is unfit to practise as a medical practitioner.
2. Pursuant to s 13(3)(b) of the Medical Act 1894 (WA), the practitioner's name be removed from the register.
(Page 7)
- 3. The practitioner pay the reasonable costs of the Board in a sum to be agreed between the parties, or failing agreement, a sum fixed by the President of the Tribunal.
I certify that this and the preceding [19] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUSTICE M L BARKER, PRESIDENT
0
0
2