Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Williams

This case concerns the referral by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (the "Applicant") of disciplinary proceedings against Marlene Verna Williams (the "Respondent"), a registered nurse, under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) ("the National Law"). The Applicant alleges that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct by being convicted of supplying a dangerous drug within a correctional facility and giving a prohibited thing to a prisoner. It is also alleged that she failed to give written notice of her conviction to the relevant authorities. The Respondent, who is self-represented, contests the allegations and argues against any suspension of her registration.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct under the National Law. It was also required to determine an appropriate sanction, if any, for the Respondent's conduct. In deciding the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal considered factors such as the protection of the health and safety of the public, personal and general deterrence, maintenance of professional standards, maintenance of public confidence, and the Respondent's insight and remorse.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's conduct in relation to the drug offence amounted to professional misconduct, while the failure to notify the authorities of her conviction constituted unprofessional conduct. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal considered the mitigating factors, including the Respondent's lack of prior criminal or disciplinary history, her cooperation with the police and the Tribunal, and her remorse. The Tribunal also took into account the severe shortage of experienced nurses in the community, particularly in the rural aged care sector where the Respondent currently works. The Tribunal concluded that it was not in the public interest to deprive the community of the Respondent's services at this time, and therefore decided against suspending her registration. Instead, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondent be reprimanded.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that the conduct of the Respondent in relation to Count 1 of the referral was professional misconduct, and in relation to Count 2 was unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was reprimanded, and both parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the proceeding.