Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Lal

The respondent, Lal, sought registration as a medical practitioner following a series of serious sexual offences. The Board refused his application. Lal appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which set aside the Board’s decision. The Board sought leave to appeal VCAT’s decision. One issue was whether there should be a stay on Lal being able to practise pending the hearing of the appeal. Another was whether the Board could rely on new evidence in the appeal.

The Board argued that the paramount consideration was the protection of the public. It considered that the public interest was best served if Lal did not practise even subject to close supervision. The Full Court found that the Board had made an error of law in making its decision to refuse Lal’s application. It held that the Board should have considered the evidence of Lal’s good character and rehabilitation. However, it found that the Board’s conclusion that Lal should not be registered was open on the evidence. It granted the Board leave to appeal. The Full Court held that the paramount consideration in deciding whether to grant a stay was the protection of the public. It found that the risk of Lal reoffending was too high to permit him to practise even subject to close supervision. It therefore granted the Board’s application for a stay.