Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Wilson

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Wilson [2025] QCAT 406

PARTIES:

NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA

(applicant)

v

EMILY WILSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR212-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 July 2025 (Ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

29 July 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Reid
Assisted by:
Ms C Elliot
Dr K Forrester

Mr S Lewis

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to section 93(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), the Tribunal is satisfied Emily Wilson has been given notice of the hearing under s 92 of the QCAT Act, and has decided the matter in absence of respondent.

2. Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’), in respect of allegations 1, 2 and 4, Emily Wilson has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5(a) and (c) of the National Law; (3) pursuant to section 196(2)(a) of the National Law.

3. Pursuant to section 196(2)(a) of the National Law, Emily Wilson is reprimanded.

4.     No order as to costs.

5.     Until further order, pursuant to section 66(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Old); the publication of:

(a)     the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;

(b)     evidence given before the Tribunal;

(c)     any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal; and

(d)     any other information,

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of any lay witnesses, CJ, OS or WC who are named in any documents or thing produced to the Tribunal that may identify or lead to the identification of the individual named in the material produced relevant to the Respondent's conduct the subject of the Referral.

6.     Order 5 does not apply to publication to the extent it is for the purposes of:

(a)     the parties engaging in and progressing this proceeding or any appeal arising from this proceeding; or

(b) the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia performing its statutory functions under the National Law.

7.     Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by a judicial member, Tribunal member, any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal, the staff of the Tribunal registry, or the parties to this proceeding (including their legal representatives).

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Ms F Wood instructed by McInnes Wilson Lawyers

Respondent:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

The respondent was born in 1988. She was first registered as a nurse in December 2008 and as a midwife in February 2011. Her registration expired on 31 May 2025, and she has not worked in any capacity as a nurse since 2 October 2020. She had been employed as a midwife at the Redland Hospital between March 2010 and June 2010. She also worked as a senior flight nurse for Medevac Flights from about 2017 until 2 October 2020, when she was stood down due to health concerns.
It appears from the material which had been filed, in particular a report of a psychiatrist, that she has had longstanding issues with drug addiction. There have been, however, periods when she has not been so addicted.
The matters before me were dealt with in her absence because despite service of material, including notice of the hearing upon her, she has determined to take no part in proceedings. At the commencement of the proceedings, her name was called three times and a phone number that had been provided for contacting her was called.
A woman answered the phone but denied she was Ms Emily Wilson and said she did not know at all of Emily Wilson. Whether it was, in fact, her or not does not matter. It is clear on all of the material that she does not wish to participate in these proceedings. That is perhaps understandable in circumstances where she has not worked for almost five years and is not currently a registered nurse.
In addition, there was an assessment made that she was permanently incapacitated, and she got some sort of insurance payout as a result of that disability.
There are four charges before the Tribunal. The first and second are closely interrelated. They relate to a conviction on 18 August 2021 for possession of a restricted drug that was unlawfully obtained. The particular medication was a blood pressure medication, which can, as I understand it, assist with sleeping. It was a drug called labetalol. She obtained it from Redland Hospital stock where she was working. On 18 August 2021, she was convicted of an offence that related to the possession of that drug in September 2020. The drug is a schedule 4 medication and she was not authorised to possess it.
In submissions before the Magistrate, her solicitor indicated that his instructions were that she had taken the bottle on her rounds and distributed it as needed to patients in June 2020. She instructed her solicitor that she inadvertently took it home in her pocket and continued to possess it until she returned to hospital on 20 September 2020 when it was found in her handbag. The respondent’s solicitor submitted to the Magistrate that the possession was due to inadvertence.
The Magistrate, as I would, viewed that explanation with some incredulity. It is by no means unknown for nurses to take some drugs with them on circuit and distribute them to patients, although that is not my common experience. Nevertheless, to have taken it from work in her pocket in June 2020 and to be found with it in her bag in September 2020 is, in my view, an indication that she had knowledge of its possession and, nevertheless, maintained it.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that allegations one and two are proven. Allegation four is similarly proven. I do not propose to go through the facts in detail, but they are outlined in paragraphs [69] to [72] of the submissions of the applicant. Essentially, she was working for Medivac Flights, used a doctor’s prescription pad to order those drugs, had them delivered to her residence and used them for her own use. Quite clearly, this constitutes a significant departure from the standard expected of a nurse.
The Tribunal had significant difficulties in respect of allegation three. While there is a high degree of suspicion, I have come to the conclusion that the charge has not been proven to the requisite standard, having regard to Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34. On 15 December 2018, the respondent came to work at about 8.00am, perhaps a little late. She was significantly affected, but whether this was a result of her own conscious ingestion of drugs and if so, whether it was due to prescribed drugs, or whether it was due to an incident of low blood pressure unrelated to drug use is not entirely clear.
One might well have significant concerns or suspicion that she appeared at work on that day when impaired. I cannot rule out the possibility that that impairment only manifested itself at about or shortly after she came to work, and whether or not it was due to any misconduct on her behalf. In the circumstances, I conclude that I am not satisfied to the requisite standard of proof that allegation three is made out.
In the circumstances, I find that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct by reason of proof of allegations one, two and four. Allegation four in particular is of very significant concern involving dishonesty and prescription drug use when those drugs were not prescribed for her, which may have significantly affected her capacity to carry out her duties.
A feature of this case is, as I have said, that the respondent’s registration as a nurse ceased on 31 May 2025. In the circumstances, it is not possible to suspend her from her registration as a nurse, but I would indicate that, but for that cessation of her capacity to practice in May 2025, I would undoubtedly have cancelled her registration, but that, of course, is unnecessary. The relevant board in considering any application by her for reregistration should have regard to the fact that I would have, but for that fact, cancelled her registration, and for the significant departure from the standard expected of a nurse constituted by allegations one, two and four.
In saying that, I am conscious that her misbehaviour relates to significant issues with drug addiction, which may well have underlying mental health issues associated with it. Ultimately, that is not a matter that I have to determine.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal orders as follows:
Pursuant to section 93(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), the Tribunal is satisfied Emily Wilson has been given notice of the hearing under s 92 of the QCAT Act, and has decided the matter in absence of respondent.
Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’), in respect of allegations 1, 2 and 4, Emily Wilson has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5(a) and (c) of the National Law; (3) pursuant to section 196(2)(a) of the National Law.
Pursuant to section 196(2)(a) of the National Law, Emily Wilson is reprimanded.
No order as to costs.
Until further order, pursuant to section 66(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Old); the publication of:
(a)     the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
(b)     evidence given before the Tribunal;
(c)     any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal; and
(d)     any other information,
is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of any lay witnesses, CJ, OS or WC who are named in any documents or thing produced to the Tribunal that may identify or lead to the identification of the individual named in the material produced relevant to the Respondent's conduct the subject of the Referral.
Order 5 does not apply to publication to the extent it is for the purposes of:
(a) the parties engaging in and progressing this proceeding or any appeal arising from this proceeding; or
(b) the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia performing its statutory functions under the National Law.
Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by a judicial member, Tribunal member, any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal, the staff of the Tribunal registry, or the parties to this proceeding (including their legal representatives).

[2025] QCAT 406

29 July 2025 (Ex tempore)