NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and GUILDFORD-TAYLOR
[2014] WASAT 72
•17 JUNE 2014
NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and GUILDFORD-TAYLOR [2014] WASAT 72
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2014] WASAT 72 | |
| HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2010 | |||
| Case No: | VR:151/2013 | DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS | |
| Coram: | JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) | 17/06/14 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for nonpublication order in relation to practitioner's identity dismissed Limited nonpublication order made in relation to procedure that practitioner apparently underwent in 2011 | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA LISA GUILDFORD-TAYLOR |
Catchwords: | Vocational regulation Nurse Professional misconduct Impairment Substance abuse or dependence Practitioner impersonated a medical practitioner and provided a false medical history in order to procure insertion of a venous infusaport in circumstances where there was no clinical justification for one being inserted Practice and procedure Nonpublication (suppression) order Whether Tribunal should make a nonpublication order in relation to practitioner's identity |
Legislation: | Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60(2), s 61(4), s 62(1), s 62(3) |
Case References: | Jemielita v Medical Board of Western Australia (unreported, WASC Library No 920584, 13.11.92) Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Love [2011] WASAT 13; (2011) 74 SR (WA) 326 Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and GuildfordTaylor [2014] WASAT 24 |
Orders | On the application determined on the documents by Deputy President, Judge Parry on 17 June 2014, it is ordered that:,1. The application for a non-publication order in relation to the practitioner's identity is dismissed.,2. Pursuant to s 62(3) and s 61(4)(g) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the Tribunal and any other entity or person may not publish any evidence given before the Tribunal in this proceeding or the contents of any document produced to the Tribunal in this proceeding which discloses a procedure that the practitioner apparently underwent in 2011.,3. These reasons and the Tribunal's reasons in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Guildford-Taylor [2014] WASAT 24 and in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Guildford-Taylor [2014] WASAT 24 (S) are not to be published by the Tribunal on its website or disclosed by either party to any person (other than, if relevant, in relation to an appeal) prior to 16 July 2014. |
Summary | The Tribunal previously found that Ms Lisa GuildfordTaylor (practitioner), a registered health practitioner and specifically an Enrolled Nurse, behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia) (National Law) in that she: (a) held herself out to be a medical practitioner, specifically an Oncology Registrar; and (b) provided a false medical history,,in order to procure the insertion of a venous infusaport in circumstances where there was no clinical justification for one being inserted. The Tribunal also previously found that the practitioner has an impairment, in terms of substance abuse or dependence, under the National Law.,Following the publication of the conduct reasons, the practitioner applied, in effect, for a nonpublication order (also referred to as a suppression order) in relation to her identity, because she said that she was receiving 'death threats' and 'abusive phone calls', and was 'physically attacked whilst walking home'.,The Tribunal refused to make a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity. The Tribunal found that, in the absence of any details, explanation or evidence, other than generalised assertions, the practitioner's claims of death threats, abusive telephone calls and a physical attack appear to be fanciful. The Tribunal did not consider it necessary to make a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity or other material in the conduct reasons to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of the practitioner. The Tribunal also found that the publication of the practitioner's identity and aspects of her medical history which pertain to her professional misconduct, while unfortunate, is required to achieve the objects of vocational disciplinary proceedings and transparency in such proceedings.,The Tribunal made a limited nonpublication order in relation to a particular procedure that the practitioner apparently underwent in 2011. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : VOCATIONAL REGULATION ACT : HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2010 CITATION : NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and GUILDFORD-TAYLOR [2014] WASAT 72 MEMBER : JUDGE D R PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 17 JUNE 2014 FILE NO/S : VR 151 of 2013 BETWEEN : NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA
- Applicant
AND
LISA GUILDFORD-TAYLOR
Respondent
Catchwords:
Vocational regulation - Nurse - Professional misconduct - Impairment - Substance abuse or dependence - Practitioner impersonated a medical practitioner and provided a false medical history in order to procure insertion of a venous infusaport in circumstances where there was no clinical justification for one being inserted - Practice and procedure - Nonpublication (suppression) order - Whether Tribunal should make a nonpublication order in relation to practitioner's identity
Legislation:
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60(2), s 61(4), s 62(1), s 62(3)
Result:
Application for nonpublication order in relation to practitioner's identity dismissed
Limited nonpublication order made in relation to procedure that practitioner apparently underwent in 2011
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
The Tribunal previously found that Ms Lisa GuildfordTaylor (practitioner), a registered health practitioner and specifically an Enrolled Nurse, behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia) (National Law) in that she:
- (a) held herself out to be a medical practitioner, specifically an Oncology Registrar; and
(b) provided a false medical history,
Following the publication of the conduct reasons, the practitioner applied, in effect, for a nonpublication order (also referred to as a suppression order) in relation to her identity, because she said that she was receiving 'death threats' and 'abusive phone calls', and was 'physically attacked whilst walking home'.
The Tribunal refused to make a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity. The Tribunal found that, in the absence of any details, explanation or evidence, other than generalised assertions, the practitioner's claims of death threats, abusive telephone calls and a physical attack appear to be fanciful. The Tribunal did not consider it necessary to make a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity or other material in the conduct reasons to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of the practitioner. The Tribunal also found that the publication of the practitioner's identity and aspects of her medical history which pertain to her professional misconduct, while unfortunate, is required to achieve the objects of vocational disciplinary proceedings and transparency in such proceedings.
The Tribunal made a limited nonpublication order in relation to a particular procedure that the practitioner apparently underwent in 2011.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr H Quail with Mr DP Spencer
Respondent : In person
Solicitors:
Applicant : Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
Respondent : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Jemielita v Medical Board of Western Australia (unreported, WASC Library No 920584, 13.11.92)
Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Love [2011] WASAT 13; (2011) 74 SR (WA) 326
Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and GuildfordTaylor [2014] WASAT 24
Application for nonpublication order
1 On 25 February 2014, the Tribunal found that, during the period 13 November 2012 to 13 December 2012, Ms Lisa GuildfordTaylor (practitioner), a registered health practitioner and specifically an Enrolled Nurse, behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia) (National Law) in that she:
a) held herself out to be a medical practitioner, specifically an Oncology Registrar; and
b) provided a false medical history,
- in order to procure the insertion of a venous infusaport in circumstances where there was no clinical justification for one being inserted: see Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and GuildfordTaylor [2014] WASAT 24 (conduct reasons).
2 As noted in the conduct reasons at [6], although the practitioner had been given notice of all hearings and provided with copies of all orders in this proceeding, she failed to attend any hearing, failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders, and failed to make any contact with the Tribunal during the course of the proceeding prior to the publication of the conduct reasons. The first contact that the practitioner made with the Tribunal was in terms of the following email sent by the practitioner to the Tribunal at 9.26 pm on 11 March 2014:
PLEASE THIS Is URGENT! Please remove the details regarding my case Lisa GuildfordTaylor vs AHCPRA [sic] as an article was published regarding this case in the newspaper and my reputation and wellbeing greatly affected. PLEASE please remove my details. I am undergoing treatment to get well from the illness causing this issue and am now recieving [sic] threats and backlash from the unit where I am having treatment. My reputation is being seriously tarnished and I am recieving [sic] death threats at home. PLEASE I cannot beg you enough. I am writing late at night and will ring [in] the morning also but please take this of [sic] as soon as possible.
3 On 12 March 2014, the Tribunal ordered that this email 'is taken to be an application by the [practitioner] under s 62(3) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) for suppression of her name in the Tribunal's orders and [conduct] reasons'. The Tribunal directed the practitioner, by 25 March 2014, to file and serve her evidence (if any) and submissions in relation to the application for the suppression order and directed the Board, by 1 April 2014, to file and serve its evidence (if any) and submissions in relation to the application for the suppression order. The Tribunal also ordered that, subject to any further order, the application for the suppression order is to be determined entirely on the documents under s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) and that the Tribunal's conduct reasons and final orders were to be removed from the Tribunal's website pending the determination of the application for the suppression order.
4 On 13 March 2014, the Tribunal replied by email to the practitioner's email sent on 11 March 2014, attaching a copy of the orders made on 12 March 2014 and a copy of s 61 and s 62 of the SAT Act. The Tribunal also sent the practitioner a copy of the orders and a copy of s 61 and s 62 of the SAT Act by post.
5 On 13 March 2014, the practitioner emailed the Tribunal as follows:
Can I clarify please that nothing further regarding my case will be published online for public viewing? Given the circumstances and continued death threats I am extremely concerned about further documents being published.
6 The Tribunal responded to this email on 13 March 2014 as follows:
Dear Ms GuildfordTaylor,
As the orders made by the Tribunal [on] 12 March 2014 state, the reasons and orders have been temporarily removed from the SAT website pending the determination of your application for a suppression order.
However, the orders also require you to provide written submissions to the Tribunal as to why the suppression order should be granted. These submissions should be mailed to the Tribunal's offices at 12 St Georges Terrace, Perth, WA 6000.
Please see the orders attached in the previous email for details.
7 On 22 March 2014, the practitioner wrote to the Tribunal as follows in relation to the application for the suppression order:
To STATE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [sic]
RE: LISA GUILDFORDTAYLOR
22ND March 2014
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
I am writing to you with great concern and in significant distress after the details of my case were published both online and subsequently by [T]he West Australian Newspaper.
As a result despite my side of the story not being taken into affect i [sic] have received several death threats both by phone and to my home address using my full surname.
These threats continue and are based largely on the information provided on the state tribunals [sic] website and subsequent publications in the newspaper which are extract of this information.
Whilst i [sic] understand that there are certain laws that make this necessary i [sic] would ask that you remove any information pertaining to my case online and any identifying features and also ask that in the future no such information regarding my case is made public. I hope you are aware that this is extremely distressing and the situation itself without these threats has been extremely traumatic.
Thankyou for your cooperation in this matter,
Kind regards,
[Signature]
Lisa GuildfordTaylor
8 Furthermore, in her written submission in relation to penalty filed on 1 April 2014, the practitioner said that she is 'extremely distressed and disappointed that the results of several articles published in newspapers and on websites have resulted in several death threats being delivered directly to my home address, abusive phone calls and being physically attacked whilst walking home'. The practitioner also said that 'I am in fear of my life and safety and this situation is still not resolved'.
Legal framework and principles in relation to nonpublication order
9 Section 62(3) of the SAT Act states as follows:
On the application of a party or on its own initiative the Tribunal may, in the circumstances described in section 61(4), order that anything, or any particular thing, to which this section applies is not to be published except in the manner and to the persons, if any, specified by the Tribunal.
10 Section 62(1) of the SAT Act states as follows:
This section applies to
(a) any evidence given before the Tribunal; and
(b) the contents of any documents produced to the Tribunal; and
(c) any information that might enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal to be identified.
11 Section 61(2) of the SAT Act confers a discretion upon the Tribunal, in the circumstances described in s 61(4), to 'order that a hearing or any part of it be held in private and that only specified persons may be present'.
12 Section 61(4) of the SAT Act, which is referred to in both s 62(3) (in relation to the circumstances in which the Tribunal may make a nonpublication order) and s 61(2) (in relation to the circumstances in which the Tribunal may make an order that a hearing, or any part of it, be held in private) is in the following terms:
The Tribunal may make an order under subsection (2) if the Tribunal considers it is necessary to do so
(a) to avoid endangering the national or international security of Western Australia or Australia; or
(b) to avoid damaging intergovernmental relations; or
(c) to avoid prejudicing the administration of justice; or
(d) to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of any person; or
(e) to avoid offending public decency or morality; or
(f) to avoid endangering property; or
(g) to avoid the publication of confidential information or information the publication of which would be contrary to the public interest; or
(h) for any other reason in the interests of justice.
13 The Court of Appeal discussed the relationship between s 61 and s 62 of the SAT Act in Medical Board of Western Australia v A Medical Practitioner [2011] WASCA 151 (A Medical Practitioner) at [91] [92] as follows:
… [A]lthough the circumstances in which the powers of the Tribunal may be exercised under s 61 and s 62 are identical, the powers conferred by the two sections are different in character. Section 61 confers a power to conduct a hearing in private, whereas s 62 confers a power to make a general order, potentially applicable to the world at large, prohibiting the publication of anything falling within the scope of s 62(1). The scope of the material falling within that subsection is to be determined by the proper construction of the words used, in the context of s 62 itself, and in the context of the Act as a whole. The proper construction of the words used in s 62(1) is informed by the scope of the power conferred by s 62(3), in that it extends to members of the public, including media organisations, as well as to the parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal, and other participants in proceedings before the Tribunal including witnesses, and those present in the hearing room. Aspects of the Act as a whole which provide context for the interpretation of the words used in s 62(1) include the analysis above which shows that no member of the public has a right of access to anything other than the material contained in the public register maintained pursuant to s 155 of the Act, or what might be gleaned from attendance at a hearing of the Tribunal held in public pursuant to s 61 of the Act. However, by contrast, the parties to proceedings before the Tribunal will have access to a significantly greater quantity of information, including documents provided to the Tribunal by other parties to the proceedings, and the evidence given of events which transpire in hearings of the Tribunal conducted in private pursuant to an order made under s 61 of the Act, or evidence received by the Tribunal in writing pursuant to s 32 of the Act.
Significant also to the proper construction of s 62 of the Act are the provisions of the Act which provide that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself as it thinks fit, that permit the Tribunal to receive evidence or argument in writing and which authorise the Tribunal to conduct all or part of a proceeding entirely on the basis of documents without a hearing (see s 32 and s 60 of the Act). Significant also is the parliamentary intention, manifest in s 61(4) and s 62(3) to prevent proceedings in the Tribunal giving rise to any of the adverse consequences identified in that subsection including, relevantly to the present case, endangerment to the physical or mental health or safety of any person.
14 The Court of Appeal held in relation to the Tribunal's power to make a nonpublication order under s 62 of the SAT Act in A Medical Practitioner at [86] [88] as follows:
… [T]he Tribunal … has been given an express power to prohibit publication of the matters specified in s 62 of the Act in the circumstances specified in s 61(4) of the Act. Breach of an order made by the Tribunal under s 62 is not, of itself, an offence, but could be the subject of proceedings in the Supreme Court for contempt of the Tribunal, punishable as if contempt of the Supreme Court.
It is clear from this analysis that there are material differences of some significance between the 'open justice principles' applied in common law courts, and the rights and obligations conferred upon the Tribunal by the Act. Those differences exist in relation to the scope of the right of public access to information and proceedings in the Tribunal, the source and scope of the power to make orders with respect to the non-publication of material related to proceedings before the Tribunal, and the source and repository of the power to punish for breach of a non-publication order. These differences reinforce the observation that when an issue arises as to whether the hearing of a Tribunal should be conducted in private, or a nonpublication order made, and if so, its scope, the question is to be resolved by directing attention to the relevant provisions of the Act rather than by emphasis upon the common law principles of open justice which have evolved in relation to courts.
However, this is not to say that an expansive view should be taken of the powers conferred by s 61 and s 62 of the Act to exclude the public from hearings of the Tribunal or to suppress publication of certain material. On the contrary, the language employed by the legislature in those sections compels the conclusion that it was intended that orders would only be made under those sections if necessary to avoid the particular consequences specified in s 61(4)(a) - (g), or 'in the interests of justice' (s 61(4)(h)). The requirement that the order be 'necessary' reinforces the view enunciated by Chaney J that there must be a real and substantial connection between the admission of the public or the publication of material (as the case may be) and the relevant adverse consequence specified in the section or the detrimental effect upon the interests of justice. A remote possibility of harm arising from an indirect or tenuous connection between a failure to make a closed hearing or suppression order will not satisfy the statutory requirement that the order be 'necessary'. Like Chaney J, we would construe the particular consequences specified in s 61(4)(a) - (g) as applying only to consequences of a significant or material kind, and not to consequences which are minor in character, transient or ephemeral.
Should a nonpublication order be made in relation to the practitioner's identity?
15 Section 62(3), s 62(1) and s 61(4) of the SAT Act together confer a discretion on the Tribunal (relevantly constituted by a legally qualified member: s 62(4)) to make a nonpublication order (also referred to as a 'suppression order') in relation to the practitioner's identity or any aspect of the evidence or any other material referred to in the conduct reasons, if the Tribunal considers that it is 'necessary to do so' to avoid one or more of the relevant adverse consequences specified in s 61(4)(a) (g) or for any other reason in the interests of justice (s 61(4)(h)). As the Court of Appeal held in A Medical Practitioner, in order for the Tribunal to consider it 'necessary' to make a nonpublication order, there must be a 'real and substantial connection between … the publication of material … and the relevant adverse consequence specified in the section or the detrimental effect upon the interests of justice'. Furthermore, a 'remote possibility of harm arising from an indirect or tenuous connection between a failure to make a … suppression order will not satisfy the statutory requirement that the order be "necessary"'.
16 In her email to the Tribunal on 11 March 2014, the practitioner said that she was 'receiving threats and backlash from the unit where I am having treatment' and 'receiving death threats at home'. In her email on 13 March 2014, the practitioner referred to 'continued death threats'. In her letter to the Tribunal dated 22 March 2014, the practitioner said that she had 'received several death threats both by phone and to my home address using my full surname'. In her submission in relation to penalty filed on 1 April 2014, the practitioner said that 'the results of several articles published in newspapers and on websites have resulted in several death threats being delivered directly to my home address, abusive phone calls and being physically attacked whilst walking home'. She also said in her submission that 'I am in fear of my life and safety and this situation is still not resolved'.
17 One of the circumstances in which the Tribunal has a discretion to make a nonpublication order is where it considers that it necessary 'to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of any person' (s 61(4)(d) of the SAT Act). However, the practitioner has provided no details or evidence in relation to the 'death threats', other than her generalised assertions that she has received these. The practitioner has also not provided any details or evidence, other than generalised assertions, that she has received 'abusive phone calls' and that she has been 'physically attacked whilst walking home'.
18 Furthermore, the practitioner has not provided any evidence or explanation as to why the publication of her identity and other material in the conduct reasons would result in death threats, abusive phone calls and physical assault, or who would be caused or prompted by the publication of the practitioner's identity and other material in the conduct reasons to make death threats or abusive telephone calls to the practitioner or to physically attack her whilst she was walking home.
19 In the absence of any details, explanation or evidence, other than generalised assertions, the practitioner's claims appear to be fanciful. I am not satisfied, on the basis of the practitioner's assertions, that there is a real and substantial connection between the publication of her identity or other material in the conduct reasons and endangering the physical or mental health or safety of the practitioner or that for any other reason it is in the interests of justice for her identity or other material in the conduct reasons to be suppressed. I, therefore, do not consider it 'necessary' to make a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity or other material in the conduct reasons to avoid endangering her physical or mental health or safety.
20 Another circumstance in which the Tribunal has a discretion to make a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity or other material referred to in the conduct reasons is 'to avoid the publication of confidential information …' (s 61(4)(g) of the SAT Act). In her submission in relation to penalty filed on 1 April 2014, the practitioner says that 'confidential medical details have been released' in the conduct reasons and that this is 'extremely unfair and also illegal'. She says that she is 'a human being who has the right to confidentiality where my medical history is concerned'.
21 An order for the nonpublication of the practitioner's identity or of medical information in relation to the practitioner referred to in the conduct reasons is 'necessary' in order 'to avoid the publication of confidential information' in relation to aspects of the practitioner's medical history. The Tribunal, therefore, has a discretion under s 62(3), s 62(1) and s 61(4)(g) of the SAT Act to make a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity or her medical history referred to in the conduct reasons. However, in my view, the discretion should not be exercised to make a nonpublication order in the circumstances of this case, other than a limited order in relation to one aspect of the practitioner's medical history disclosed in the conduct reasons (as originally published).
22 It is well recognised that vocational disciplinary proceedings have three principal objects, namely:
(1) the protection of the public 'from delinquents and wrongdoers within professions' and 'seriously incompetent professional people who are ignorant of basic rules and indifferent to rudimentary professional requirements';
(2) the 'need to maintain the high standards and good reputation of the profession generally in the eyes of the community'; and
(3) the 'need to deter others who may be of a like mind to transgress in the future'.
(Jemielita v Medical Board of Western Australia (unreported, WASC Library No 920584, 13.11.92) at 141 (Owen J)).
23 As the Tribunal observed in Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Love [2011] WASAT 13; (2011) 74 SR (WA) 326 and [18]:
Maintenance of the high standards and good reputation of a profession requires that disciplinary proceedings not be conducted in private. It is important that the identity of practitioners subject to proceedings, the nature of the conduct giving rise to the proceedings, and the outcome of the proceedings is all open to public scrutiny. That openness is also necessary to achieve the required deterrent effect on other practitioners.
24 Transparency is also necessary in vocational disciplinary proceedings in order to protect the public, relevantly the consumers of health services.
25 In my view, in the circumstances of this case, in order to achieve the objects of vocational disciplinary proceedings, it is necessary for the identity of the practitioner and the circumstances of her professional misconduct, including, unfortunately, details of her medical history which relate to having held herself out to be a medical practitioner and having provided a false medical history in order to procure the insertion of a venous infusaport, to be disclosed in the Tribunal's conduct reasons for decision. Furthermore, the Tribunal could not meaningfully express its conduct reasons for decision in the circumstances of this case without referring to the practitioner's medical history pertaining to her professional misconduct. Ultimately, therefore, in my view, it is in the public interest and in the interests of justice in the context of vocational disciplinary proceedings for the identity of the practitioner and details of her medical history pertaining to the circumstances of her professional misconduct to be disclosed in the Tribunal's conduct reasons.
26 However, it is not necessary to achieve the objects of vocational disciplinary proceedings or for the Tribunal to be able to meaningfully express its reasons to refer in the conduct reasons to a particular procedure that the practitioner apparently underwent in 2011 which the Tribunal referred to at [15(b)], [18] and [19(c)] of the conduct reasons. A limited nonpublication order should, therefore, be made in relation to that procedure.
Conclusion
27 The application for a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity should be refused, because it is not necessary to make that order to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of the practitioner and because, although confidential information in relation to the practitioner's medical history is disclosed in the conduct reasons, the publication of the practitioner's identity and disclosure of aspects of her medical history which pertain to her professional misconduct, while unfortunate, is required to achieve the objects of vocational disciplinary proceedings and transparency in such proceedings. However, a limited nonpublication order should be made precluding the publication by the Tribunal or by any other entity or person of any evidence given before the Tribunal or the contents of any document produced to the Tribunal which discloses a particular procedure that the practitioner apparently underwent in 2011. This requires the redaction of the identification of that procedure at [15(b)], [18] and [19(c)] of the Tribunal's conduct reasons.
28 These reasons should now be provided to the parties, together with the conduct reasons revised in accordance with the nonpublication order referred to in the preceding paragraph and the Tribunal's reasons in relation to penalty and costs which is published concurrently with these reasons. These reasons, the conduct reasons and the penalty and costs reasons are not to be published on the Tribunal's website or disclosed by either party to any person (other than, if relevant, in relation to an appeal) for 28 days.
Orders
29 The Tribunal makes the following orders:
1. The application for a nonpublication order in relation to the practitioner's identity is dismissed.
2. Pursuant to s 62(3) and s 61(4)(g) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the Tribunal and any other entity or person may not publish any evidence given before the Tribunal in this proceeding or the contents of any document produced to the Tribunal in this proceeding which discloses a procedure that the practitioner apparently underwent in 2011.
3. These reasons and the Tribunal's reasons in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and GuildfordTaylor [2014] WASAT 24 and in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and GuildfordTaylor[2014] WASAT 24 (S) are not to be published by the Tribunal on its website or disclosed by either party to any person (other than, if relevant, in relation to an appeal) prior to 16 July 2014.
I certify that this and the preceding [29] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUDGE D R PARRY, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
0
3
2