PHARMACY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and HAMILTON
[2021] WASAT 138
•20 OCTOBER 2021
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2010 (WA)
CITATION: PHARMACY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and HAMILTON [2021] WASAT 138
MEMBER: JUDGE D R PARRY, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
MR J MANSVELD, SENIOR MEMBER
MS D PEARSON, SESSIONAL MEMBER
HEARD: 28 AND 29 JANUARY 2021, WRITTEN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS FILED 22 MARCH 2021, 7 MAY 2021 AND 18 MAY 2021, FURTHER ORAL SUBMISSIONS 20 JULY 2021 AND 10 AUGUST 2021, FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED 9 AUGUST 2021 AND 17 AUGUST 2021
DELIVERED : 20 OCTOBER 2021
FILE NO/S: VR 95 of 2017
BETWEEN: PHARMACY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
FELECIA HAMILTON
Respondent
Catchwords:
Vocational regulation Registered health practitioners Pharmacists Conduct occurring prior to commencement of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law when practitioner registered as a pharmaceutical chemist under Pharmacy Act 1964 (WA) Proceeding commenced under Health Practitioner Regulation National Law after expiration of transitional provision providing that proceedings may be taken under Health Practitioner Regulation National Law in relation to a registered health practitioner's behaviour while registered under a corresponding prior Act as if person were registered under Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Whether Tribunal required to determine issue and characterisation of practitioner's conduct and issue of penalty in consequence of practitioner's conduct under Health Practitioner Regulation National Law or corresponding prior Act – Statutory interpretation – Whether proceeding can be commenced under expired transitional provision where applicant opened 'own-motion notification' in relation to practitioner's behaviour prior to expiration of transitional provision – Whether presumption against retrospective operation of statute rebutted Penalty Engaging in practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients for a purpose which practitioner knew did not accord with recognised therapeutic standards Engaging in practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients in quantities and/or combinations which practitioner knew had potential for misuse and abuse and which practitioner ought to have known, but did not know, were not necessary for any proper therapeutic purpose, were likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to health of patients and/or others, and had potential for dependency Engaging in practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients by dispensing repeat authorisations and/or multiple prescriptions when practitioner knew there was potential for misuse and abuse and ought to have known, but did not know, that quantity and/or combination was likely to constitute unacceptable hazard to health of patients and/or others, and had potential for dependency Costs
Legislation:
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 5, s 35, s 35(1)(i), s 139, s 193, s 193(1)(a)(i), s 193(2)(a)(i), s 196, s 305, s 305(3), Pt 8, Sch 7, cl 7, cl 12(1), cl 34(1)(b), cl 37
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Regulations 2010 (WA), reg 30, reg 30(2), reg 30(3)
Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (Vic), s 77(1)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 37(1)(c), s 37(1)(f)
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 275
Medical Act 1894 (WA)
Medical Practitioners Act 2008 (WA)
Pharmacy Act 1964 (WA), s 32, s 32(1), s 32(3)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 11(8), s 83(1)(b), s 87(2)
Result:
Practitioner reprimanded
Practitioner's registration suspended for a period of two years and six months
Practitioner ordered to pay applicant's costs fixed in the amount of $95,649.70
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms F A Stanton and Ms J McKenzie |
| Respondent | : | Mr B D Havilah |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Minter Ellison |
| Respondent | : | Havilah Legal |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Dekker v Medical Board of Australia [2014] WASCA 216
Dental Board of Australia v Abdullah (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 19
Fisher v Hebburn Limited [1960] HCA 80; (1960) 105 CLR 188
Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Anne Amigo [2012] NSWMT 13
Health Care Complaints Commission v Bours (No 1) [2014] NSWCATOD 113
Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Annette Dao Quynh Do [2013] NSWMT 7
Health Care Complaints Commission v Schultz [2012] NSWMT 7
Hegde v Pharmacy Board of Australia [No 2] [2020] WASC 384
Kennedy v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2008] VSC 507; (2008) 21 VR 292
Legal Profession Complaints Committee and in de Braekt [2012] WASAT 58 (S); (2012) 80 SR (WA) 194
Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Chang [2019] WASAT 67 (S)
Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261
Medical Board of Australia and Bowles [2014] WASAT 115
Medical Board of Australia and Boyd [2013] WASAT 123
Medical Board of Australia and Dekker [2013] WASAT 182
Medical Board of Australia v Dr Paul David Thompson [2020] TASHPT 2
Medical Board of Australia and Dr ZOF No. 2 (Review and Regulation) [2015] VCAT 379
Medical Board of Australia v Koniuszko (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 492
Medical Board of Western Australia and Roberman [2005] WASAT 81 (S)
Medical Board of Australia and Roberts [2014] WASAT 76
Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33
Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S)
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Burrows [2020] QCAT 164
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Manton [2014] QCAT 400
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v MTZ (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 1821
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361
Pharmacy Board of Australia and Hegde [2020] WASAT 89
Psychology Board of Australia v Anderson [2016] VCAT 1407
Singh v Medical Board of Australia [2019] WASCA 51
Tarvydas v Medical Board of Western Australia (Unreported, SCWA (Wheeler J), Library No. 990198)
Walton v McBride [1989] NSWCA 222
Western Australian Planning Commission and Scutti [2019] WASAT 99
Table of Contents
Introduction
What is the applicable law?
Evidence
Legal framework and principles in relation to penalty
Parties' contentions as to the appropriate penalty
What is the appropriate disciplinary consequence of the practitioner's professional misconduct?
Costs
Conclusion
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
On 16 May 2017, the Pharmacy Board of Australia (Board or applicant) commenced this professional disciplinary proceeding against Ms Felecia Hamilton (practitioner or respondent) under s 35(1)(i) and s 193(1)(a)(i) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law), which is the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA).
The practitioner has been a registered health practitioner, in particular a pharmacist, under the National Law since the commencement of the National Law on 18 October 2010. From 6December 2000 to 17 October 2010, the practitioner was a registered health practitioner, in particular a pharmaceutical chemist, under the Pharmacy Act 1964 (WA) (Pharmacy Act). The Pharmacy Act was repealed upon the commencement of the National Law and is 'a corresponding prior Act' for the purposes of the National Law.
Section35(1)(i) of the National Law provides that the functions of a National Board established for a health profession, such as the Board, which has been established for the profession of pharmacy, include:
to refer matters about health practitioners who are or were registered under this Law or a corresponding prior Act to responsible tribunals for participating jurisdictions[.]
In particular, s 193(1)(a)(i) of the National Law provides that:
A National Board must refer a matter about a registered health practitioner … to the responsible tribunal if … the Board reasonably believes, based on a notification or for any other reason ... the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
Section 193(2)(a)(i) of the National Law relevantly provides that a National Board must refer a matter, where it reasonably believes that a practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, to 'the responsible tribunal for the participating jurisdiction in which the behaviour the subject of the matter occurred'.
The Board referred this matter to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT or Tribunal), as the responsible tribunal for Western Australia, by the commencement of this proceeding, on the basis that it reasonably believes that the practitioner behaved in a way that constitutes 'professional misconduct', as defined in s 5 of the National Law, in the period 26 August 2008 to 30 April 2009, by engaging in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to a total of 49 patients over 586 dispensing incidents at Hamilton's Health Performance Pharmacy (now known as Hamilton's Compounding Pharmacy) in Canning Vale, Western Australia (pharmacy).
The issue of the practitioner's conduct was listed for final hearing before the Tribunal, comprising Senior Member Ms Charlotte Wallace, Member Ms Rosetta Petrucci and Sessional Member MrWayne Burg, over four days from 8 11 July 2019 (conduct hearing). On 8 July 2019, the Board opened its case and called its witness, Dr Robin Durston, whose evidenceinchief was in the form of an affidavit that was admitted into evidence and who was crossexamined and reexamined. On 9 July 2019, the Board called its expert witness, Ms Liza Seubert, a pharmacist, whose evidenceinchief was contained in reports she had provided to the Board that were admitted into evidence and who was crossexamined and reexamined. On 10 July 2019, counsel for the practitioner[1] opened her case and called her to give evidence. The practitioner's evidenceinchief was principally in the form of a witness statement that was admitted into evidence. The practitioner was crossexamined throughout the rest of the day by counsel for the Board.[2]
[1] At the conduct hearing counsel for the practitioner was Mr A P Hershowitz.
[2] At the conduct hearing counsel for the Board was Ms F A Stanton, who also appeared with Ms J McKenzie on behalf of the Board at the penalty and costs hearing.
Following conferral between counsel for the parties during an adjournment on the morning of the fourth day of the conduct hearing on 11 July 2019, the parties informed the Tribunal that they had agreed to orders as to the facts and findings to be made against the practitioner in relation to conduct, leaving only the issues of penalty and costs to be determined. The matter was then adjourned to enable the parties to file a Minute of Agreed Statement of Facts and Findings.
On 12 July 2019, the parties filed a Minute of Agreed Statement of Facts and Findings dated 11 July 2019, which set out agreed facts at [1] [13][3] and then set out the following agreed 'findings' at [14]:[4]
[3] The agreed facts set out at [1] [13] of the Minute of Agreed Statement of Facts and Findings filed on 12 July 2019 are in the same terms as the agreed facts set out in Annexure A to the Tribunal's conduct order made on 29 January 2021 (and amended on 1 February 2021 pursuant to s 83(1)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act)), which is reproduced at [19] below, except that the date of 26 August 2008 at [9] was incorrectly stated as 1 January 2008.
[4] Emphasis added.
By reason of the matters set out in paragraphs 1 to 13 above, the [r]espondent admits that she has engaged in professional misconduct as defined in section 5 of the schedule to the National Law in that, in the period 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2009, in that she:
(a)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients for a purpose which the [r]espondent knew, or ought to have known, did not accord with recognised therapeutic standards;
(b)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients in quantities and/or in combinations which the [r]espondent knew, or ought to have known, were not necessary for any proper therapeutic purpose and were likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to the health of patients and/or others to whom those drugs could be on-sold and had the potential for misuse, abuse or psychological and/or physical dependency; and
(c)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients by dispensing repeat authorisations and/or multiple prescriptions:
(i)in the same transactions; or
(ii)in separate transactions conducted significantly within the period in which the medication would have been consumed if taken at the usual dosage,
when the [r]espondent knew, or ought to have known, that the quantity and/or combination of the drugs supplied was likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to the health of patients and/or others [t]o whom those drugs could be on-sold and had the potential for misuse, abuse or psychological and/or physical dependency.
As can be seen, the agreed 'findings' set out immediately above were defective and incapable of being made by the Tribunal, because they used the composite alternative expression 'knew, or ought to have known', in relation to the practitioner's conduct in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
At a directions hearing on 25 September 2019, Senior Member Wallace ordered the parties to 'inform the Tribunal in writing whether, and if so in what terms, they intend to amend the Minute of Agreed [Statement of] Facts and Findings'. However, it appears that the parties did not do so.
At a directions hearing on 5 November 2019, Senior Member Wallace ordered that '[t]he final [conduct] hearing is relisted at 10am on 11 December 2019 for a duration of 3 hours for the purposes of completing the evidence of [the practitioner] insofar as it relates to the issue of knowledge'. The expression 'the issue of knowledge' referred to an the issue as to whether the relevant findings in terms of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the parties' agreed 'findings' should be: (i) that the practitioner knew the matter referred to (as the Board contended); or (ii) that the practitioner did not know, but ought to have known, the matter referred to (as the practitioner contended). However, the hearing of 'the issue of knowledge' did not take place on 11 December 2019.
During the first half of 2020, there were a series of directions hearings before Deputy President Judge Sharp. At a further directions hearing on 9 July 2020, Deputy President Judge Parry ordered that '[t]he proceeding (other than any issues of penalty and costs) [including the issue of knowledge] is listed for final hearing at 10am on 11 November 2020 for two days before the Tribunal as further reconstituted by the President [Justice Pritchard] on 1 July 2020 under s 11(8) of the [State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)] comprising Deputy President Judge Parry, Member Jack Mansveld and Sessional Member Donna Pearson'.[5]
[5] Member Jack Mansveld was subsequently reappointed as a Senior Member of the Tribunal.
However, the parties ultimately resolved 'the issue of knowledge' without the need for a hearing. At a directions hearing before Judge Parry on 23 July 2020, the parties filed a Minute of Proposed Orders including an order that '[t]he facts and findings agreed by the parties are contained in Annexure A'. On 23 July 2020, Judge Parry made the following notation:
The Tribunal notes that the parties agree to the facts set out at [1] [13] in Annexure A and that the respondent admits that, by reason of those facts, she engaged in professional misconduct as set out at [14] in Annexure A.
The agreed facts set out at [1] [13] in Annexure A referred to in the Tribunal's notation reproduced immediately above are in the same terms as the agreed facts set out in Annexure A to the conduct order which we made on 29 January 2021,[6] which is reproduced at [19] below, except that the date of 26 August 2008 at [9] was incorrectly stated as 1 January 2008. The professional misconduct set out at [14] in Annexure A referred to in the Tribunal's notation, which the practitioner admitted that, by reason of the agreed facts, she engaged in, is as follows:[7]
[6] Amended on 1 February 2021 under s 83(1)(b) of the SAT Act.
[7] As written.
By reason of the matters set out in paragraphs 1 to 13 above, the respondent admits that she has engaged in professional misconduct as defined in s 5 of the Schedule to the National Law in that, in the period 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2009, in that she:
(a)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients for a purpose which the respondent knew did not accord with recognised therapeutic standards;
(b)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients in quantities and/or in combinations which the respondent:
(i)ought to have known, but did not know, were not necessary for any proper therapeutic purpose;
(ii)ought to have known, but did not know, were likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to the health of patients and/or others to whom those drugs could be onsold;
(iii)knew had the potential for misuse and abuse; and
(iv)ought to have known, but did not know, had the potential for psychological and/or physical dependency; and
(c)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients by dispensing repeat authorisations and/or multiple prescriptions:
(i)in the same transactions; or
(ii)in separate transactions conducted significantly within the period in which the medication would have been consumed if taken at the usual dosage;
when the respondent:
(iii)ought to have known, but did not know, that the quantity and/or combination of the drugs supplied was likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to the health of patients and/or others to whom those drugs could be onsold; and
(iv)knew had the potential for misuse and abuse; and
(v)ought to have known, but did not know, had the potential for psychological and/or physical dependency.
At the directions hearing on 23 July 2020, Judge Parry also made programming orders for the determination of the issues of penalty and costs.
We conducted the hearing in relation to the issues of penalty and costs on 28 and 29 January 2021 (penalty and costs hearing). As the two hearing days were taken up with the parties' opening statements and evidence of the practitioner and three of her character referees, and as the parties wished to have access to the transcript before making their closing submissions, at the conclusion of the hearing on 29 January 2021, we ordered the parties to file and exchange their closing submissions in writing.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 29 January 2021, we also made the following order in relation to the practitioner's conduct in the terms of the practitioner's admission that she engaged in professional misconduct as set out at [14] in Annexure A to the notation made by the Tribunal on 23 July 2020, which is reproduced at [15] above,[8] (conduct order):[9]
[8] Except that the commencement date of the period during which the professional misconduct occurred was corrected in the conduct order to 26 August 2008 (rather than 1 January 2008).
[9] As amended on 1 February 2021 pursuant to s 83(1)(b) of the SAT Act.
The Tribunal finds that by reason of the agreed facts set out at [1] - [13] of Annexure A, the respondent engaged in professional misconduct as defined in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law which is the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) in that, in the period 26 August 2008 to 30 April 2009, she:
(a)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients for a purpose which the respondent knew did not accord with recognised therapeutic standards;
(b)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients in quantities and/or in combinations which the respondent:
(i)ought to have known, but did not know, were not necessary for any proper therapeutic purpose;
(ii)ought to have known, but did not know, were likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to the health of patients and/or others to whom those drugs could be onsold;
(iii)knew had the potential for misuse and abuse; and
(iv)ought to have known, but did not know, had the potential for psychological and/or physical dependency; and
(c)engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients by dispensing repeat authorisations and/or multiple prescriptions:
(i)in the same transactions; or
(ii)in separate transactions conducted significantly within the period in which the medication would have been consumed if taken at the usual dosage,
when the respondent:
(iii)ought to have known, but did not know, that the quantity and/or combination of the drugs supplied was likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to the health of patients and/or others to whom those drugs could be onsold;
(iv)knew had the potential for misuse and abuse; and
(v)ought to have known, but did not know, had the potential for psychological and/or physical dependency.
The 'agreed facts set out at [1] [13] of Annexure A' referred to in the conduct order (agreed facts) are as follows:[10]
[10] Original emphasis.
The applicant
1.The applicant is established pursuant to s 31 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) and has the functions referred to in s 35 of the National Law, including the referral of matters concerning registered health practitioners under a corresponding prior Act to responsible tribunals in participating jurisdictions.
The respondent
2.The respondent, Felecia Hamilton, was born on 28 June 1976.
3.The respondent is registered as a pharmacist with AHPRA, registration number PHA0001555832.
4.The respondent was first registered as a pharmacist on 6 December 2000 and has held continuous registration since that date.
5.At all material times, the respondent held registration as a pharmaceutical chemist pursuant to the Pharmacy Act 1964 (WA) (repealed).
6.The respondent was, at all material times:
(a)the sole proprietor of Hamilton's Health Performance Pharmacy also known as Hamilton's Compounding Pharmacy in Canning Vale, Western Australia (Pharmacy); and
(b)the principal pharmacist and holder of the poisons licence at the Pharmacy.
Dispensing of anabolic androgenic steroids
7.A pharmacist must exercise professional independent judgment to prevent the supply of products likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to health or the supply of unnecessary and/or excessive quantities of medicines and other products, particularly those which have a potential for abuse or dependency.
Particulars
Pharmaceutical Society of Australia Code of Professional Conduct 1998, 1.3
8.A pharmacist shall not supply or permit to be supplied any substance in circumstances where the pharmacist knows or could reasonably be expected to know that it is required for other than a legitimate use.
Particulars
Pharmaceutical Society of Western Australia Code of Ethics July 2000, 2.8
9.In the period 26 August 2008 to 30 April 2009, the respondent engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients:
(a)in quantities and combinations which the respondent ought to have known, but did not know, were not necessary for any therapeutic purpose; and
(b)by dispensing repeat authorisations and/or multiple prescriptions:
(i)in the same transaction; or
(ii)in separate transactions conducted significantly within the period in which the medication would have been consumed if taken at the usual dosage;
when the respondent:
(c)ought to have known, but did not know, that the quantities and/or combinations of medication supplied were likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to health;
(d)knew that quantities and/or combinations of medication supplied had the potential for misuse and abuse; and
(e)ought to have known, but did not know, that the quantities and/or combinations of medication supplied had the potential for psychological and/or physical dependency.
10.The anabolic androgenic steroids referred to in paragraph 9 above were dispensed by the respondent in the form of Deca Durabolin, Sustanon, Andriol, Primoteston, Proviron and Reandron.
Particulars
The details of the anabolic androgenic steroids dispensed by the respondent are set out in Schedule A.
11.Anabolic androgenic steroids can be used to achieve greater muscle mass and the respondent knew that they have the potential to be:
(a)misused by patients seeking to increase muscle mass;
(b)misused by patients seeking to enhance sporting ability; and
(c)on-sold by patients who obtain anabolic androgenic steroids on prescription to others.
12.Potential adverse side effects of use of anabolic androgenic steroids or excessive or prolonged use of anabolic androgenic steroids include (but are not limited to):
(a)acne;
(b)high blood pressure;
(c)increased low-density lipoprotein and/or decreased highdensity lipoprotein;
(d)liver damage;
(e)cardiovascular disease;
(f)gynaecomastia;
(g)testicular atrophy; and/or
(h)increased aggression.
13.Dr Saliem Ismail and Dr Robin Durston were the main prescribers of the anabolic steroids referred to in 9 and 10 above.
Schedule A
Pharmacist Date Dispensed Patient Drug Qty Felecia Hamilton 26/08/2008 Patient 40 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 30/08/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/09/2008 Patient 1 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 04/09/2008 Patient 1 PROVIRON 25MG TAB 50 Felecia Hamilton 04/09/2008 Patient 1 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 Felecia Hamilton 04/09/2008 Patient 1 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 Felecia Hamilton 05/09/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 12/09/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 12/09/2008 Patient 31 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 12/09/2008 Patient 31 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 13/09/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/09/2008 Patient 34 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/09/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/09/2008 Patient 32 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 9 Felecia Hamilton 19/09/2008 Patient 35 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 Felecia Hamilton 24/09/2008 Patient 12 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/09/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/09/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/09/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/09/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/09/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/09/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/09/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/09/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 30/09/2008 Patient 35 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/10/2008 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/10/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/10/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/10/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 06/10/2008 Patient 4 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 07/10/2008 Patient 20 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 07/10/2008 Patient 20 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 07/10/2008 Patient 20 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 07/10/2008 Patient 20 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 08/10/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 09/10/2008 Patient 21 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 09/10/2008 Patient 21 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 09/10/2008 Patient 21 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 09/10/2008 Patient 21 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 11/10/2008 Patient 2 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 11/10/2008 Patient 2 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 13/10/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/10/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/10/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/10/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/10/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/10/2008 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/10/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 21/10/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/10/2008 Patient 34 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/10/2008 Patient 34 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/10/2008 Patient 34 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/10/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/10/2008 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/10/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/10/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/10/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/10/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/10/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/10/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/10/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/10/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/10/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/10/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/10/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/10/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/10/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 27/10/2008 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 31/10/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 03/11/2008 Patient 32 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 03/11/2008 Patient 32 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 03/11/2008 Patient 46 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 03/11/2008 Patient 46 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/11/2008 Patient 42 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/11/2008 Patient 42 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/11/2008 Patient 42 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/11/2008 Patient 11 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/11/2008 Patient 11 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/11/2008 Patient 11 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/11/2008 Patient 11 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 06/11/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/11/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/11/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/11/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/11/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/11/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/11/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 10/11/2008 Patient 32 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 10/11/2008 Patient 32 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 11/11/2008 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 11/11/2008 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 11/11/2008 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 11/11/2008 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 12/11/2008 Patient 35 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 13/11/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/11/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/11/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 47 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 47 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 47 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 47 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 32 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/11/2008 Patient 32 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 19/11/2008 Patient 21 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 19/11/2008 Patient 21 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 19/11/2008 Patient 21 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 19/11/2008 Patient 21 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 21/11/2008 Patient 12 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 21/11/2008 Patient 13 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 21/11/2008 Patient 13 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 21/11/2008 Patient 13 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 21/11/2008 Patient 13 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 21/11/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 24/11/2008 Patient 19 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 24/11/2008 Patient 19 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 24/11/2008 Patient 19 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 24/11/2008 Patient 19 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 25/11/2008 Patient 9 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/11/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/11/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/11/2008 Patient 27 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/11/2008 Patient 46 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/11/2008 Patient 46 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/11/2008 Patient 46 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/11/2008 Patient 46 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/11/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 02/12/2008 Patient 32 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 9 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/12/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/12/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/12/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/12/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/12/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 05/12/2008 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 06/12/2008 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/12/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/12/2008 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 08/12/2008 Patient 32 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 08/12/2008 Patient 32 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 09/12/2008 Patient 20 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 09/12/2008 Patient 20 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 09/12/2008 Patient 20 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 09/12/2008 Patient 20 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/12/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/12/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/12/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/12/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 14/12/2008 Patient 37 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 15/12/2008 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 15/12/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 KR 15/12/2008 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 KR 15/12/2008 Patient 44 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 16/12/2008 Patient 13 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 16/12/2008 Patient 13 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 16/12/2008 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 16/12/2008 Patient 16 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 16/12/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 16/12/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 16/12/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 16/12/2008 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/12/2008 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 17/12/2008 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 17/12/2008 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 Felecia Hamilton 17/12/2008 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 Felecia Hamilton 17/12/2008 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 17/12/2008 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 18/12/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/12/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/12/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/12/2008 Patient 18 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/12/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/12/2008 Patient 37 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/12/2008 Patient 36 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 8 AP 22/12/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 23/12/2008 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 23/12/2008 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/12/2008 Patient 42 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/12/2008 Patient 42 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/12/2008 Patient 42 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/12/2008 Patient 44 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/12/2008 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 6 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 6 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 6 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 6 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 6 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 6 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 6 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/12/2008 Patient 6 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 29/12/2008 Patient 19 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 29/12/2008 Patient 19 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 29/12/2008 Patient 19 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 29/12/2008 Patient 19 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 30/12/2008 Patient 2 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 30/12/2008 Patient 2 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 30/12/2008 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 30/12/2008 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 12 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/01/2009 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/01/2009 Patient 47 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/01/2009 Patient 47 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/01/2009 Patient 47 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/01/2009 Patient 47 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/01/2009 Patient 47 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/01/2009 Patient 47 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/01/2009 Patient 47 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/01/2009 Patient 47 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 05/01/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 05/01/2009 Patient 39 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 05/01/2009 Patient 39 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 05/01/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 05/01/2009 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 06/01/2009 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 09/01/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 09/01/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 09/01/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 09/01/2009 Patient 16 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 10/01/2009 Patient 9 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 10/01/2009 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 12/01/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 12/01/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 13/01/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 13/01/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 13/01/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 13/01/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 13/01/2009 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 6 AP 13/01/2009 Patient 44 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 41 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 41 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 41 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 41 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 41 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 41 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 41 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 5 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 5 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 5 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 5 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/01/2009 Patient 5 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 KR 16/01/2009 Patient 32 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 9 KR 16/01/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/01/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/01/2009 Patient 49 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/01/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/01/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/01/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 20/01/2009 Patient 44 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/01/2009 Patient 48 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/01/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/01/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/01/2009 Patient 48 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/01/2009 Patient 48 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 22/01/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/01/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/01/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/01/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/01/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 24/01/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/01/2009 Patient 5 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/01/2009 Patient 5 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/01/2009 Patient 5 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/01/2009 Patient 5 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 27/01/2009 Patient 16 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 27/01/2009 Patient 16 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 27/01/2009 Patient 16 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 34 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 34 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 34 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 34 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/01/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 KR 28/01/2009 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 9 KR 29/01/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 29/01/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 29/01/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 02/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 03/02/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 03/02/2009 Patient 39 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 03/02/2009 Patient 39 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 03/02/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/02/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/02/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/02/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/02/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/02/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/02/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/02/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 04/02/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 KR 04/02/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 KR 04/02/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 KR 04/02/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 KR 04/02/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 04/02/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 04/02/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 7 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 7 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 7 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 7 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 7 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 7 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 7 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 7 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/02/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 06/02/2009 Patient 49 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 06/02/2009 Patient 49 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 06/02/2009 Patient 49 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 06/02/2009 Patient 49 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 07/02/2009 Patient 30 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 45 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 45 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 45 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 45 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 45 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 45 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 45 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 45 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/02/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 09/02/2009 Patient 12 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 10/02/2009 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 10/02/2009 Patient 37 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 10/02/2009 Patient 37 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 10/02/2009 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 10/02/2009 Patient 37 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 10/02/2009 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 10/02/2009 Patient 37 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 10/02/2009 Patient 37 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/02/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 12/02/2009 Patient 5 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 KR 12/02/2009 Patient 5 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 KR 12/02/2009 Patient 5 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 KR 12/02/2009 Patient 5 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 12/02/2009 Patient 5 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 13/02/2009 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 14/02/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/02/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 18/02/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 KR 18/02/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/02/2009 Patient 36 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 8 Felecia Hamilton 20/02/2009 Patient 32 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 9 Felecia Hamilton 20/02/2009 Patient 17 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/02/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 23/02/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 23/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 23/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 23/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 23/02/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/02/2009 Patient 28 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/02/2009 Patient 28 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/02/2009 Patient 28 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/02/2009 Patient 28 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/02/2009 Patient 28 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 KR 26/02/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/02/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/02/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/02/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/02/2009 Patient 44 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 27/02/2009 Patient 46 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 27/02/2009 Patient 46 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/02/2009 Patient 17 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/02/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/03/2009 Patient 45 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/03/2009 Patient 45 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/03/2009 Patient 45 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/03/2009 Patient 45 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/03/2009 Patient 45 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/03/2009 Patient 45 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/03/2009 Patient 45 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/03/2009 Patient 45 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 03/03/2009 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 18 KR 04/03/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 KR 04/03/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/03/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/03/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/03/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/03/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 05/03/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 07/03/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 07/03/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 07/03/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 07/03/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 09/03/2009 Patient 11 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 09/03/2009 Patient 11 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 09/03/2009 Patient 11 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 09/03/2009 Patient 11 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/03/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/03/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/03/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 13/03/2009 Patient 17 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 16/03/2009 Patient 44 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/03/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/03/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 18/03/2009 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 9 Felecia Hamilton 19/03/2009 Patient 12 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/03/2009 Patient 17 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/03/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION
Felecia Hamilton 21/03/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/03/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/03/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/03/2009 Patient 45 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG 60 Felecia Hamilton 21/03/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/03/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/03/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/03/2009 Patient 45 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 Felecia Hamilton 22/03/2009 Patient 45 PROVIRON 25MG TAB 50 Felecia Hamilton 22/03/2009 Patient 45 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG 60 Felecia Hamilton 22/03/2009 Patient 45 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG 60 Felecia Hamilton 22/03/2009 Patient 45 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 AP 24/03/2009 Patient 44 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/03/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 25/03/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 1 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 1 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 15 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 15 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 15 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 15 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 26/03/2009 Patient 15 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/03/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 28/03/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 30/03/2009 Patient 3 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 30/03/2009 Patient 28 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 30/03/2009 Patient 28 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 30/03/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 01/04/2009 Patient 9 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 3 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 3 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 02/04/2009 Patient 44 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/04/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/04/2009 Patient 23 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 03/04/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/04/2009 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 08/04/2009 Patient 34 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 08/04/2009 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 08/04/2009 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 08/04/2009 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 08/04/2009 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 Felecia Hamilton 08/04/2009 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG CAP 60 Felecia Hamilton 09/04/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/04/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/04/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 11/04/2009 Patient 10 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 14/04/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 14/04/2009 Patient 49 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 14/04/2009 Patient 49 PROVIRON 25MG T 50 AP 14/04/2009 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 6 Felecia Hamilton 15/04/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 15/04/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 36 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 8 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 24 PROVIRON 25MG T 50 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 43 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 24 PROVIRON 25MG TAB 50 Felecia Hamilton 16/04/2009 Patient 24 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/04/2009 Patient 12 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/04/2009 Patient 34 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 17/04/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/04/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/04/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 17/04/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 18/04/2009 Patient 1 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 18/04/2009 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/04/2009 Patient 1 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 18/04/2009 Patient 1 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 18/04/2009 Patient 8 REANDRON 100MG/4ML AMP 1 Felecia Hamilton 19/04/2009 Patient 38 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 19/04/2009 Patient 38 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 20/04/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 20/04/2009 Patient 23 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 AP 20/04/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 20/04/2009 Patient 27 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 20/04/2009 Patient 27 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 23 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 25 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 25 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 25 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 25 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 21/04/2009 Patient 22 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/04/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/04/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/04/2009 Patient 39 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 22/04/2009 Patient 46 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG 60 Felecia Hamilton 23/04/2009 Patient 29 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/04/2009 Patient 29 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 Felecia Hamilton 23/04/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 Felecia Hamilton 27/04/2009 Patient 49 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 14 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 14 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 PROVIRON 25MG TAB 50 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 PRIMOTESTON DEPOT INJ 250MG 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 DECA DURABOLIN 50MG ORGAJECT 1ML 3 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 26 PROVIRON 25MG TAB 50 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 46 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 AP 28/04/2009 Patient 46 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 28/04/2009 Patient 23 ANDRIOL TESTOCAPS 40MG C 60 Felecia Hamilton 29/04/2009 Patient 34 PROVIRON 25MG TAB 50 Felecia Hamilton 30/04/2009 Patient 33 SUSTANON 250 INJECTION 3
The parties subsequently requested, and were granted, two extensions to the timetable for the filing and exchange of their closing submissions. Ultimately, the parties filed their closing submissions on 22 March 2021 (Board's closing submissions), 7 May 2021 (practitioner's closing submissions) and 18 May 2021 (Board's closing submissions in reply).
What is the applicable law in this case?
As indicated earlier, in this proceeding the Board alleged – and the practitioner ultimately admitted – that she engaged in professional misconduct as defined in s 5 of the National Law during a period in 2008 and 2009 which was prior to the commencement of the National Law (on 18 October 2010) and at a time when the practitioner was registered as a pharmaceutical chemist under the Pharmacy Act. As also indicated earlier, on 29 January 2021, we made the conduct order in the terms of the practitioner's admission that she engaged in professional misconduct under the National Law in the period 26 August 2008 to 30 April 2009, prior to the commencement of the National Law.
However, there is a presumption in statutory interpretation against the retrospective operation of a statute. As Fullagar J said in Fisher v Hebburn Limited [1960] HCA 80; (1960) 105 CLR 188 at [11]; 194:[11]
… the general rule is that an amending enactment or, for that matter, any enactment is prima facie to be construed as having a prospective operation only. That is to say, it is prima facie to be construed as not attaching new legal consequences to facts or events which occurred before its commencement.
[11] See also Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261, 267 (Dixon CJ).
Furthermore, as Kaye J observed in Kennedy v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2008] VSC 507; (2008) 21 VR 292 at [40], specifically in the context of the interpretation of a professional disciplinary statute:
… it would require a clear expression of statutory intention to permit … [a statute that commenced after the conduct in question occurred] to be construed, so as to apply to the [practitioner's] conduct … [prior to the commencement of the statute], the standard of "unprofessional conduct" introduced … by [the] statute.
Moreover, in Singh v Medical Board of Australia [2019] WASCA 51, which was an appeal from a penalty decision of the Tribunal,[12] Quinlan CJ and Pritchard JA appear to have considered that the National Law does not have retrospective operation in relation to conduct that occurred prior to its commencement, and that, rather, the corresponding prior Act applied to such conduct. Their Honours made the following observations in Singh v Medical Board of Australia at [14], [15], [22], and [23] in relation to the findings of misconduct made by the Tribunal[13]:[14]
14The findings of misconduct made by the Tribunal, as noted above, related to the appellant's conduct over a period extending from 2008 through to 2015.
15During that period, there was a change in the legislation regulating the medical profession. From 2008 until 17 October 2010, the relevant legislation was the Medical Practitioners Act 2008 (WA). The National Law came into operation on 18 October 2010. The terms of the Tribunal's ultimate findings reflect the change in the relevant legislation from that date.
…
22As to the characterisation of the appellant's conduct, for the period from 2008 to 17 October 2010, the Tribunal found that the appellant had acted 'carelessly, incompetently and/or improperly', they being the relevant standards under the Medical Practitioners Act 2008. For the period following the commencement of the National Law (18 October 2010), the Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct was 'professional misconduct'.
23There is relevantly no significance to the difference in characterisation of the conduct under the Medical Practitioners Act 2008 and the National Law for the purposes of this appeal. That is because the penalty imposed by the Tribunal, as permitted by the National Law, was a global penalty under the National Law in relation to all of the conduct.
[12] See Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S) (Justice Curthoys P, Ms H Leslie M, Dr A McCutcheon SSessM and Dr P Winterton SSessM).
[13] See Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (Justice Curthoys P, Ms H Leslie M, Dr A McCutcheon SSessM and Dr P Winterton SSessM).
[14] Footnotes omitted. As the Tribunal explained in the conduct decision in Medical Board of Australia and Singh at [4] [8], there were in fact three separate applications before the Tribunal, two of which related to Dr Singh's alleged conduct prior to the commencement of the National Law and one of which related to Dr Singh's alleged conduct after the commencement of the National Law. The Tribunal stated at [5] and [6] that Dr Singh's conduct in relation to the first two applications was 'to be assessed under the [Medical Practitioners Act 2008 (WA)]', whereas the Tribunal stated at [7] that Dr Singh's conduct in relation to the third application was 'to be assessed under the National Law'.
Furthermore, although reg 30 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Regulations 2010 (WA) (National Law Regs), which was a transitional provision made under s 305 of the National Law to facilitate the change from corresponding prior Acts to the National Law, specifically enabled a National Board to take disciplinary proceedings under Pt 8 of the National Law in relation to a registered health practitioner's behaviour whilst registered under a corresponding prior Act 'as if the person were registered under the [National Law]', that regulation expired on 30 June 2015 (pursuant to s 305(3) of the National Law), whereas the Board commenced this proceeding against the practitioner almost two years later, on 16 May 2017. Reg 30 of the National Law Regs stated as follows:
(1)This clause applies if—
(a)the National Agency receives a notification about a registered health practitioner or student; and
(b)the subject matter of the notification happened while the practitioner or student was registered in a health profession under a corresponding prior Act.
(2)Proceedings may be taken under Part 8 of the Law in relation to the registered health practitioner's or student's behaviour while registered under the corresponding prior Act as if the person were registered under the Law by the National Board established for the health profession.
(3)However, subclause (2) applies only to the extent—
(a)a notification about the registered health practitioner's or student's behaviour could have been made under the corresponding prior Act; and
(b)proceedings of that type could have been taken under the corresponding prior Act.
Having received and reviewed the parties' written closing submissions, in which the parties both assumed that the Tribunal is required to determine the issue and characterisation of the practitioner's conduct and the issue of penalty in consequence of the practitioner's conduct in this case under the National Law, rather than under the Pharmacy Act, which operated at the time of the practitioner's behaviour the subject of this proceeding, we, in effect, identified the following issues for determination and invited the parties to make submissions in relation to these issues:
1.Whether the Tribunal is required to determine the issue and characterisation of the practitioner's conduct in this proceeding under:
(a)s 196(1) of the National Law; or
(b)s 32(1) of the Pharmacy Act.
2.Whether the Tribunal is required to determine the issue of penalty in consequence of the practitioner's conduct in this proceeding under:
(a)s 196(2) (4) of the National Law; or
(b)s 32(3) of the Pharmacy Act.
Section 196 of the National Law states as follows:
(1)After hearing a matter about a registered health practitioner, a responsible tribunal may decide —
(a)the practitioner has no case to answer and no further action is to be taken in relation to the matter; or
(b)one or more of the following —
(i)the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional performance;
(ii)the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct;
(iii)the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;
(iv)the practitioner has an impairment;
(v)the practitioner's registration was improperly obtained because the practitioner or someone else gave the National Board established for the practitioner's health profession information or a document that was false or misleading in a material particular.
(2)If a responsible tribunal makes a decision referred to in subsection (1)(b), the tribunal may decide to do one or more of the following —
(a)caution or reprimand the practitioner;
(b)impose a condition on the practitioner's registration, including, for example —
(i)a condition requiring the practitioner to complete specified further education or training, or to undergo counselling, within a specified period; or
(ii)a condition requiring the practitioner to undertake a specified period of supervised practice; or
(iii)a condition requiring the practitioner to do, or refrain from doing, something in connection with the practitioner’s practice; or
(iv)a condition requiring the practitioner to manage the practitioner’s practice in a specified way; or
(v)a condition requiring the practitioner to report to a specified person at specified times about the practitioner’s practice; or
(vi)a condition requiring the practitioner not to employ, engage or recommend a specified person, or class of persons;
(c)require the practitioner to pay a fine of not more than $30 000 to the National Board that registers the practitioner;
(d)suspend the practitioner's registration for a specified period;
(e)cancel the practitioner's registration.
(3)If the responsible tribunal decides to impose a condition on the practitioner's registration, the tribunal must also decide a review period for the condition.
(4)If the tribunal decides to cancel a person's registration under this Law or the person does not hold registration under this Law, the tribunal may also decide to —
(a)disqualify the person from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period; or
(b)prohibit the person, either permanently or for a stated period, from —
(i)providing any health service or a specified health service; or
(ii)using any title or a specified title.
As indicated earlier, the Pharmacy Act was repealed upon the commencement of the National Law. Subsections (1) (3) of s 32 of the Pharmacy Act stated as follows:
(1)There is proper cause for disciplinary action if a pharmaceutical chemist, company or friendly society —
(a)has been convicted of an offence that renders that person, company or friendly society unfit to continue to be engaged in carrying on the practice of a pharmaceutical chemist;
(b)being a pharmaceutical chemist, is by reason of mental or physical incapacity, alcohol, or addiction to any deleterious drug unfit to continue to practise;
(c)is guilty of carelessness, incompetence, impropriety, misconduct or infamous conduct in a professional respect;
(d)is guilty of the breach of an undertaking given by or on behalf of that party pursuant to previous proceedings commenced under this section; or
(e)is guilty of contravening the regulations relating to advertising.
(2)The Council may allege to the State Administrative Tribunal that there is proper cause for disciplinary action, as mentioned in subsection (1), against a pharmaceutical chemist, company or friendly society.
(3)If in a proceeding commenced by an allegation under this section the State Administrative Tribunal is of the opinion that proper cause exists for disciplinary action, the Tribunal may —
(a)where that person is a pharmaceutical chemist, —
(i)order that his name be erased from the register;
(ii)order that for such period as is specified in the order, not being a period in excess of 3 years, he be prohibited from carrying on the practice of a pharmaceutical chemist, and that his licence be accordingly suspended;
(iii)impose on him a fine not exceeding $500; or
(iv)censure him;
(b)in the case of a company or friendly society —
(i)impose on it a fine not exceeding $500; or
(ii)censure it;
and
(c)in any case —
(i)by order require any party to the proceedings to give an undertaking to the Council in such terms as the Tribunal specifies in the order, either personally or in the case of a company or friendly society under the hand of a proper officer; and
(ii)by order impose or vary any condition in relation to a licence or registration.
…
We heard the parties' submissions in relation to whether the National Law or the Pharmacy Act applies to the issue and characterisation of the practitioner's conduct and to the issue of penalty in consequence of the practitioner's conduct in this case at directions hearings on 20 July 2021 and 10 August 2021. The parties also filed and rely on written submissions in relation to these issues.[15]
[15] Respondent's further submissions jurisdictional basis of conduct order dated 6 August 2021 (practitioner's further submissions) and Applicant's further submissions dated 17 August 2021 (Board's further submissions). Although we listed a further directions hearing on 25 August 2021 to enable the parties to make any further oral submissions, including to enable the practitioner to make submissions in reply to the Board's further submissions, on 24 August 2021, both parties advised the Tribunal that they did not wish to make any further oral submissions and were content for the Tribunal to determine the issues on the basis of the submissions made at the directions hearings on 20 July 2021 and 10 August 2021 and in the practitioner's further submissions and the Board's further submissions.
The Board submits that, on its proper interpretation, s 35(1)(i) of the National Law (read in the context of cl 7(1) of Sch 7 of the National Law and together with s 193 of the National Law) rebuts the presumption against retrospective operation of a statute and confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to determine this proceeding under the National Law. In particular, the Board submits that s 35(1)(i) of the National Law requires the Tribunal to determine the issue and characterisation of the practitioner's conduct under s 196(1) of the National Law and requires the Tribunal to determine the issue of penalty under s 196(2) (4) of the National Law. As indicated earlier, s 35(1)(i) of the National Law provides that the functions of a National Board include 'to refer matters about health practitioners who are or were registered under this Law or a corresponding prior Act to responsible tribunals for participating jurisdictions'.[16] The Board submits as follows:[17]
… So the Board’s position is that the words "or a corresponding prior Act" in [s 35(1)(i) of the National Law] displace the presumption against the retrospectivity in relation to conduct occurring prior to the participation date which is the subject of a notification after the participation date, as the words would otherwise be – those words would otherwise be unnecessary. …
[16] Emphasis added.
[17] ts 5, 20 July 2021.
The Board also submits that reg 30 of the National Law Regs 'wasn't really a necessary regulation in the strictest sense, as it was always the case that the intention was, if the matter wasn't being dealt with at the time that the National Law began, that such complaints would be dealt with under the National Law, and that [reg] 30 was simply to … assist with the transition'.[18] Moreover, the Board notes that reg 30 'wasn't adopted in all of the [jurisdictions] that did adopt the National Law' and submits that in those other jurisdictions 'matters have been dealt with under [Pt] 8 of the National Law, irrespective of the fact that [reg] 30 wasn't adopted'.[19] The Board also submits that 'it would be a very strange turn of events if, on the expiry of [reg 30], … all responsible tribunals were then required to revert to applying the prior corresponding Acts when they had had … [reg] 30 requiring the National Law to be applied'.[20]
[18] ts 16, 20 July 2021.
[19] ts 16, 20 July 2021. Regulation 30 was not adopted in South Australia or the Northern Territory (Board's further submissions [29]).
[20] ts 18, 20 July 2021.
The Board notes that the issues we raised, as to whether the National Law or the corresponding prior Act applies in the circumstances of this case, has not been authoritatively determined by the Tribunal or by the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. The Board submits that '[t]here are decisions going both ways from the [T]ribunal'[21] and cites Medical Board of Australia and Roberts [2014] WASAT 76[22] and Medical Board of Australia and Bowles [2014] WASAT 115[23] as examples of decisions in which the Tribunal determined that the National Law applies to a health practitioner's conduct that occurred prior to the commencement of the National Law, and Medical Board of Australia and Boyd [2013] WASAT 123[24] and Medical Board of Australia and Dekker [2013] WASAT 182[25] as examples of decisions in which the Tribunal determined that the prior corresponding Act applies to a health practitioner's conduct that occurred prior to the commencement of the National Law. The Board relies on the decision of the Health Practitioners Tribunal of Tasmania (THPT) in Medical Board of Australia v Dr Paul David Thompson [2020] TASHPT 2,[26] in which the THPT determined that it has power to hear and deal with the conduct of a health practitioner and make findings and determinations available to it under the National Law, when the conduct in question occurred prior to the commencement of the National Law and the proceeding was commenced after the expiry of the Tasmanian equivalent of reg 30 of the National Law Regs. The Board also submits that the observations made by Quinlan CJ and Pritchard JA in Singh v Medical Board of Australia set out at [24] above were obiter dicta.
[21] ts 13, 20 July 2021.
[22] Judge Sharp DP, Ms F Child M, Dr E Isaachsen SSessM and Dr H Hankey SSessM.
[23] Justice Curthoys P, Mr T Carey M and Dr A McCutcheon SSessM.
[24] Justice Chaney P, Ms F Child M, Dr H Hankey SSessM and Dr S Resnick SessM.
[25] Judge Parry DP, Dr H Hankey SSessM, Dr A McCutcheon SSessM and Dr B Jones SessM.
[26] Chairperson A Clues.
The practitioner submits that '[t]he facts of this case bring it within the scope of [reg 30 of the National Law Regs], because the process leading to the Tribunal's order had begun prior to the expiry of that regulation on 30 June 2015'.[27] The 'facts of this case' referred to by the practitioner in support of her submission are that, on 26 November 2014, a report prepared by an officer of the Department of Health dated 26 June 2009, focussing on the prescription of anabolic androgenic steroids by medical practitioners (including Dr Saliem Ismail and Dr Robin Durston), but also identifying four pharmacies, including the practitioner's, as being significant dispensers of the steroids, was forwarded to the Director, Notification and Legal Services (WA) of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), and that, on 13 January 2015, the Board opened an 'ownmotion notification' in relation to the behaviour of the practitioner referred to in the report. The practitioner submits that although reg 30 of the National Law Regs expired on 30 June 2015, 'pursuant to [cl] 34(1)(b) and [cl] 37 of [Sch] 7 of the [National Law], the expiry of [reg] 30 did not affect its previous operation or anything suffered, done or begun under it'.[28] Clause 34(1) of Sch 7 of the National Law relevantly provides that '[t]he repeal, amendment or expiry of a provision of this Law does not … affect the previous operation of the provision or anything suffered, done or begun under the provision …'[29] (cl 34(1)(b)) and cl 37(1) of Sch 7 of the National Law provides that Sch 7 'applies to a statutory instrument, and to things that may be done or are required to be done under a statutory instrument, in the same way as it applies to this Law … except so far as the context or subject matter otherwise indicates or requires'. The term 'statutory instrument' is defined in cl 12(1) of Sch 7 of the National Law to mean 'an instrument (including a regulation) made or in force under or for the purposes of this Law …'. Reg 30 of the National Law Regs was clearly a 'statutory instrument' for the purposes of Sch 7 of the National Law, and the practitioner submits that, since the Board opened an 'ownmotion notification' with respect to her behaviour on 13 January 2015, 'the process culminating in the Tribunal's decision in this case had begun before the expiry of [reg] 30, and by force of [cl] 34(1)(b) of [Sch] 7, [reg] 30 continues to apply to the proceedings notwithstanding its expiry'.[30] In contrast, the Board submits that reg 30 does not apply to this proceeding, because it expired before the commencement of the proceeding.
[27] Practitioner's further submissions [3].
[28] Practitioner's further submissions [18].
[29] Emphasis added.
[30] Practitioner's further submissions [19].
In support of the practitioner's submission that reg 30 of the National Law Regs applies in this case, and in support of her subsequent submission that, on the proper interpretation of reg 30(3) of the National Law Regs, the Tribunal is required to determine the issue of penalty in consequence of the practitioner's conduct under s 32(3) of the Pharmacy Act (and not under s 196(2) (4) of the National Law), the practitioner refers to and relies on the decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in Dental Board of Australia v Abdullah (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 19[31] and Medical Board of Australia v Koniuszko (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 492.[32] Dental Board of Australia v Abdullah involved the referral on 6 May 2014 by the Dental Board of Australia to VCAT of a matter concerning the alleged behaviour of Dr Abdullah relating to her dental treatment of a patient during the period 2009 to 2010. VCAT observed and determined as follows at [11] [13]:[33]
11Regulation 30 was a savings and transitional provision which expired on 30 June 2015. Nevertheless, because the notification about Dr Abdullah’s behaviour, the investigation of that behaviour and the decision to refer the matter to the Tribunal was made prior to the expiry of that provision, we accept that the matter continues and may be dealt with as if Regulation 30 had not expired [in a footnote VCAT referred to cl 34 of Sch 7 of the National Law].
12Regulation 30 applies to Dr Abdullah’s conduct which occurred prior to 1 July 2010, at which time she was registered under the HPR Act [that is, the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (Vic)]. The HPR Act is a “corresponding prior Act” for the purpose of s.5 of the National Law. There was power to conduct an investigation and hearing under the HPR Act into Dr Abdullah’s alleged conduct.
13As a result of Regulation 30(2) and (3), the Board had power to determine to initiate an investigation and to determine to refer the conduct to the Tribunal for a hearing and the Tribunal has the power to hear and deal with the conduct of Dr Abdullah under Part 8 of the National Law. The Tribunal has the power to make findings and determinations that were available at the time of the conduct under the HPR Act.
[31] Ms H Lambrick DP, Assoc Prof RD Story M and Dr R King M.
[32] A Dea M, B Burge M and E Fabris M.
[33] Footnotes omitted.
Medical Board of Australia v Koniuszko involved the referral by the Medical Board of Australia to VCAT of a matter concerning the alleged behaviour of Dr Koniuszko relating to his failure to obtain required permits before prescribing medications regulated by Sch 8 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). Although the Medical Board of Australia received a notification about Magistrates' Court proceedings against Dr Koniuszko arising from his prescribing on 9 March 2012, decided to take 'immediate action' and impose conditions on his registration on 9 August 2012, and decided to refer the matter to VCAT on 6 March 2014 (before the expiry of the Victorian equivalent of reg 30 of the National Law Regs), the referral was ultimately only made on 10 September 2015 (after the expiry of the regulation). VCAT observed and determined as follows at [41] [43]:[34]
41Regulation 30 was a savings and transitional provision which expired on 30 June 2015. It applied to Dr Koniuszko’s behaviour between 17 August 2007 and March 2012 and at all relevant times Dr Koniuszko was registered either under the HPR Act or the National Law. The HPR Act falls within the meaning of the term ‘corresponding prior Act’ for the purposes of regulation 30(2). As to the conduct engaged in before 30 June 2010, there was power to conduct an investigation and hearing under the HPR Act into Dr Koniuszko’s alleged conduct.
42.In Dental Board of Australia v Abdullah, the tribunal determined that the matter before it, which also traversed the two Acts, could be dealt with as if regulation 30 had not expired given that the notification of the relevant behaviour, the investigation of that behaviour and the decision to refer the matter to the tribunal was made prior to 30 June 2015.
43.In this case, the notification about Dr Koniuszko’s behaviour was made on 9 March 2012. Conditions were imposed on his registration on 9 August 2012. The Board investigated his behaviour and, on 6 March 2014, decided to refer the matter to the tribunal. While the referral did not occur until 11 September 2015, the other events occurred before regulation 30 expired on 30 June 2015. In these circumstances, we respectfully adopt the same approach as was applied in Abdullah.
[34] Footnotes omitted.
As s 3(1) of the National Law states, the object of the National Law is 'to establish a national registration and accreditation scheme' including for (under paragraph (a)) 'the regulation of health practitioners'. Under s 3(2) of the National Law, '[t]he objectives of the national registration and accreditation scheme' include (in paragraph (a)) 'to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered'. Section 4 of the National Law provides that '[a]n entity that has functions under this Law is to exercise its functions having regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the national registration and accreditation scheme set out in section 3'. Given that the National Law involves the establishment of a national registration and accreditation scheme providing for the protection of the public and that responsible tribunals conferred with jurisdiction in relation to matters concerning the behaviour of registered health practitioners are required to exercise their powers having regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the national registration and accreditation scheme set out in s 3 of the National Law, it is appropriate that provisions of the National Law and statutory instruments made or in force under or for the purposes of the National Law are generally interpreted and applied in a consistent manner by the various responsible tribunals across the nation.
As the practitioner correctly submits, '[t]his case is similar to [Medical Board of Australia v Koniuszko] in that although the referral to the Tribunal did not occur [in this case] until 16 May 2017, the notification occurred and the investigation [by the Board] began before 30 June 2015'.[35] We therefore follow the decisions of VCAT in Dental Board of Australia v Abdullah and Medical Board of Australia v Koniuszko insofar as they determine that the Victorian equivalent of reg 30 of the National Law Regs applies where (as in this case) a notification was received by a National Agency about the behaviour of a registered health practitioner while the practitioner was registered in a health profession under a corresponding prior Act and an investigation was commenced by a National Board in relation to the alleged behaviour under Pt 8 of the National Law prior to the expiration of reg 30 on 30 June 2015, with the consequence that, even if a matter arising out of the notification and investigation is only referred to the responsible tribunal after 30 June 2015, reg 30(2) continues to operate (by reason of cl 34(1)(b) and cl 37 of Sch 7 of the National Law) and authorises the proceeding to be commenced under s 193 of the National Law. We recognise that, as the Board submits, Dental Board of Australia v Abdullah is factually distinguishable from the circumstances in this case and that Medical Board of Australia v Koniuszko is also, to an extent, factually distinguishable from the circumstances of this case. In Dental Board of Australia v Abdullah, the Dental Board of Australia received the notification about Dr Abdullah's behaviour, conducted an investigation and referred the matter to VCAT by 6 May 2014, prior to the expiration of the Victorian equivalent of reg 30 of the National Law Regs on 30 June 2015. In Medical Board of Australia v Koniuszko, the Medical Board of Australia received the notification about Dr Koniuszko's behaviour, imposed conditions on his registration, conducted an investigation and decided to refer the matter to VCAT by 6 March 2014, prior to the expiration of the Victorian equivalent of reg 30 of the National Law Regs. However, significantly, the Medical Board of Australia had not referred the matter to VCAT, and thus had not taken '[p]roceedings [in VCAT] … under Part 8 of the [National] Law in relation to the registered health practitioner's … behaviour while registered under the corresponding prior Act …', under the Victorian equivalent reg 30(2), prior to the expiry of reg 30. The key facts, that a notification was received and an investigation was commenced in relation to alleged behaviour of a registered health practitioner by a National Board prior to the expiration of reg 30 and that the alleged behaviour was referred by the National Board to the responsible tribunal after the expiration of reg 30, are the same in this case and in Medical Board of Australia v Koniuszko. As the practitioner submits, 'the referral [of this matter] to the Tribunal [was] the culmination of a process that began before the expiry of [reg] 30, and it follows that [reg] 30 continues to apply to the process'.[36] As the practitioner also submits, for the purposes of reg 30(3) of the National Law Regs, 'a notification about the [practitioner's] behaviour could have been made under the [Pharmacy Act] and proceedings in relation to the [practitioner's] behaviour could have been taken under [s 32(1)(c) and s 32(2) of] that Act'.[37]
[35] Practitioner's further submissions [22].
[36] Practitioner's further submissions [22].
[37] Practitioner's further submissions [23].
We have no doubt that the disciplinary proceeding has been stressful and expensive for the practitioner, although we note in relation to 'the lengthy investigation and the Tribunal's process' that AHPRA first wrote to the practitioner requesting her response to the allegations which are now the subject of the conduct order on 6 August 2015. The practitioner denied that she committed professional misconduct for almost four years and only admitted her professional misconduct on the fourth day of a contested conduct hearing.
We do not accept the practitioner's submission, in effect, that there is no need for specific deterrence to bring home to her the seriousness of her misconduct and to deter her from future breaches. As indicated earlier, the practitioner's evidence under crossexamination indicates that her insight and remorse is grudging, rather than heartfelt, and motivated, to some extent at least, by financial considerations. Furthermore, as we found earlier, the practitioner was untruthful in the evidence she gave in her witness statement in two respects. These factors indicate that there is indeed a need for specific deterrence in the circumstances of this case.
As we said earlier, we do not derive any substantive assistance from the six other disciplinary determinations referred to by the Board concerning the prescription or dispensing of anabolic androgenic steroids. However, it is clear from those cases that these drugs are highly sought after by some people who wish to achieve greater muscle mass, particularly in body building. There are also agreed facts in this case that anabolic androgenic steroids can be used to achieve greater muscle mass and that the practitioner knew that they had the potential to be misused by patients seeking to increase muscle mass, misused by patients seeking to enhance sporting ability and onsold by patients who obtain anabolic androgenic steroids on prescription to others.[187] There is obviously a financial incentive for a pharmacist to dispense anabolic androgenic steroids and dispensing these drugs in large quantities and in combinations increases the financial incentive. In these circumstances, we accept the Board's submission that 'protection of the public can only be achieved if, in matters such as this, the penalty imposed is adequate to achieve general deterrence'.[188] The penalty imposed by the Tribunal in this case must be adequate and appropriate to deter other pharmacists from engaging in similar professional misconduct.
[187] Agreed facts [11].
[188] Board's closing submissions [12].
As the Board submits, '[t]he findings [in the conduct order] record [the practitioner's] incompetence'.[189] However, we do not accept the Board's submission that '[t]he [practitioner's] incompetence has not been cured'.[190] In support of this submission, the Board relies on the practitioner's evidence in crossexamination at the penalty hearing which the Board characterises as 'attempting to posit implausible therapeutic purposes for the prescribing (and therefore the dispensing) of the anabolic androgenic steroids'.[191] In particular, the practitioner said that a therapeutic purpose for taking anabolic androgenic steroids is to reverse muscle wasting. However, there is no evidence that this cannot be a therapeutic purpose in a particular case. Furthermore, the practitioner ultimately conceded that she engaged in professional misconduct in terms of the conduct order. In particular, she has admitted that she engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients for a purpose which she knew did not accord with recognised therapeutic standards, engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients in quantities and/or in combinations which she knew had the potential for misuse and abuse and ought to have known (but did not know) were not necessary for any proper therapeutic purpose, were likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to the health of patients and/or others to whom those drugs could be onsold and had the potential for psychogical and/or physical dependency, and engaged in the practice of dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids to patients by dispensing repeat authorisations and/or multiple prescriptions in the same transactions or in separate transactions conducted significantly within the period in which the medication would have been consumed if taken at the usual dosage when the practitioner knew that this had the potential for misuse and abuse and ought to have known (but did not know) that the quantity and/or combination of the drugs supplied was likely to constitute an unacceptable hazard to the health of patients and/or others to whom those drugs could be onsold and had the potential for psychological and/or physical dependence. The fact that the practitioner admits that she ought to have known (but did not know) the matters referred to in those terms in the conduct order certainly shows that she was incompetent (at least in relation to dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids) at the time of the professional misconduct, but also shows that she is now no longer incompetent in that regard. In particular, recognising that she ought to have known certain matters evidences transition from incompetence to competence in relation to those matters. Furthermore, the fact that the practitioner has not been the subject of any disciplinary process in relation to dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids after 30 April 2009, and the evidence referred to earlier that over the 10 years from 2010 the dispensing of anabolic androgenic steroids at the pharmacy constituted only about 2% of all dispensing episodes, is a further indication that the practitioner is no longer incompetent in relation to the dispensing of anabolic androgenic steroids.
[189] Board's closing submissions [76].
[190] Board's closing submissions [77].
[191] Board's closing submissions [58].
Furthermore, the Board does not contend – and there is no evidence to the effect – that the practitioner is generally incompetent as a pharmacist. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. The character references and the evidence of Dr Nuttall and Dr Roberts demonstrates that the practitioner is a generally competent pharmacist and, indeed, that she has particular skills, including in complex compounding of medications, that have been of great benefit to her patients' health outcomes.
The Board submits, on the basis of the report of an accountant submitted by the practitioner showing that she dispensed general prescriptions to a value of only $15,219.97 between 1 January 2019 and 3 November 2020,[192] and given that the practitioner does not have PBS accreditation, that 'there would be no loss of convenient pharmaceutical services to any subset of the community by reason of [the practitioner's] deregistration as a pharmacist'.[193] The Board also submits that the practitioner's nonprescription compounding 'does not require [her] to be registered as a pharmacist'.[194] Furthermore, relying on the evidence of Dr Nuttall in crossexamination that a compounding pharmacy has moved in next door to his practice and that compounding pharmacies are 'mushrooming all over the place … [i]t seems to be a bandwagon and a lot of companies seem to be jumping on',[195] the Board submits that '[t]here is no evidence in these proceedings that [the practitioner] offers special skills or special services the loss of which would be undesirable in the public interest'.[196]
[192] Exhibit 2, page 408.
[193] Board's closing submissions [83].
[194] Board's closing submissions [84].
[195] ts 197, 29 January 2021.
[196] Board's closing submissions [88].
The Board's submissions in this regard are overstated. The evidence shows that the practitioner has specialist knowledge and experience in complex compounding and that these skills are sought after and valued by her patients and by some medical practitioners with whom she collaborates in relation to patient care. Contrary to the Board's submission, suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration as a pharmacist would preclude her from providing the complex compounding service that she currently provides and that her patients value, because she utilises both prescription and nonprescription inputs. The practitioner said that 80% of her business would be 'devastated' if she could not dispense prescription medications.[197] The practitioner gave this evidence in reexamination and the Board did not seek leave to further crossexamine her. We take the 80% figure to include both direct dispensing of medications to patients and dispensing medications that are then used in compounding with other prescription or nonprescription inputs. In relation to the practitioner's evidence that 'we offer a very unique and highly specialised service',[198] we accept that the complex compounding service provided by the practitioner is 'highly specialised', but we are not satisfied on the evidence that it is 'very unique' and would not be available elsewhere. We do not accept Dr Nuttall's observation in his character reference that the practitioner provides 'unique care' that 'many patients will not be able to get … anywhere else'.[199] Dr Nuttall's evidence in crossexamination referred to by the Board shows that complex compounding services would be available to the practitioner's patients elsewhere, although perhaps not as conveniently, if the practitioner's registration were suspended or cancelled.
[197] ts 213, 29 January 2021.
[198] Exhibit 5 [185].
[199] Exhibit 2, page 393.
In terms of the practitioner's personal circumstances, we have no doubt that cancellation of her registration or suspension of her registration for a substantial period would have a devastating financial and emotional impact on her and her family. As indicated earlier, the practitioner has significant business and personal loans and other debts and we accept her evidence that '[m]y deregistration [or suspension for a substantial period] will trigger a financial default if I am not able to meet the repayments calling up all loans which will be unable to be serviced'.[200] We also accept her evidence that '[w]ithout a PBS number, if the pharmacy is sold, it will hold negligible value'.[201] It is likely that if the practitioner's registration is cancelled or suspended for a substantial period, the pharmacy will close, not only causing significant financial problems for the practitioner and her family, but also resulting in the loss of employment for her four employees, being two involved in compounding and two assistants. However, as the Court of Appeal said in Singh v Medical Board of Australia at [33], 'while the personal circumstances of the practitioner are a relevant consideration, the weight to be afforded to personal circumstances cannot override the fundamental obligation of the disciplinary tribunal or court to provide appropriate protection of the public'.
[200] Exhibit 5 [206].
[201] Exhibit 5 [203].
We also note that the practitioner gave evidence of fertility issues, including during the period of the professional misconduct. However, there is no expert or other evidence suggesting that this caused or contributed in any way to the professional misconduct. The practitioner also gave evidence about her Indigenous identity. However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal or submission made on behalf of the practitioner to the effect that this is in any way relevant to the professional misconduct or the imposition of an appropriate penalty in relation to it.
As indicated earlier, the Board contends that the appropriate disciplinary consequence of the practitioner's professional misconduct is cancellation of her registration and imposition of a period of disqualification from applying for registration of five years. The Board submits in this regard that:[202]
… it is open to the Tribunal to find that [the practitioner] is permanently or indefinitely unfit for the practise [sic] of pharmacy by reason of:
(1)her grossly improper conduct in knowingly dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids for nontherapeutic purposes;
(2)her gross incompetency, as demonstrated by the findings and her oral evidence, which revealed continuing incompetency and a continuing lack of insight into the meaning and seriousness of those findings; and
(3)her dishonesty and lack of candour in dealing with these matters.
[202] Board's closing submissions [101].
We are not satisfied that the practitioner is either permanently or indefinitely unfit to practise as a pharmacist. We accept the Board's characterisation of the practitioner's professional misconduct by knowingly dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids for nontherapeutic purposes as 'grossly improper' and, as we said earlier, the findings in the conduct order demonstrate the practitioner's incompetence at the time of professional misconduct in relation to dispensing anabolic androgenic steroids. However, as we also said earlier, we are satisfied that the practitioner is currently generally competent as a pharmacist. Furthermore, although we accept the Board's submission that '[f]itness to practise as a pharmacist requires the practitioner to be capable of being trusted by patients, professional peers and regulatory authorities',[203] and although we found that the practitioner gave untruthful evidence in relation to two matters, we do not accept the Board's submission that she 'lacks the character and trustworthiness necessary to discharge the responsibilities of the practice of pharmacy such that she is permanently or indefinitely unfit to practise that profession' and that her registration 'poses a risk to the public of … dishonesty with regulatory authorities'.[204]
[203] Board's opening submissions [25].
[204] Board's opening submissions [131].
However, in our view, having regard to the factors and circumstances reviewed above, in order to effectively protect the public in their dealings with pharmacists, the appropriate disciplinary consequence of the practitioner's serious professional misconduct is that she be reprimanded (under s 196(2)(a) of the National Law) and that her registration be suspended for a period of two years and six months. Any lesser period of suspension would not be adequate in the circumstances of this case to provide effective specific and general deterrence and protect the public who require the services of pharmacists. The imposition of conditions on the practitioner's registration and requiring her to pay a fine (even together with a reprimand) would be manifestly inadequate to achieve the protective objective of the disciplinary jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case referred to above.
Costs
The Board seeks an order, under s 87(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), that the practitioner pay the Board's costs of this proceeding. In accordance with the Tribunal's usual practice and programming orders, the Board provided a schedule of costs and disbursements dated 20 October 2020 in which it itemised and sought costs and disbursements in the total amount of $146,370.13, being solicitors' fees of $51,404.10 incurred to 20 October 2020, disbursements, including counsel's fees, of $77,388.03 incurred to 20 October 2020 and an estimate of future costs form 20 October 2020 of $17,578. Solicitors' and counsel's fees have been charged and are claimed on the basis of the maximum hourly rate for a Senior Practitioner and the maximum hourly or daily rate for counsel (in the absence of a written costs agreement between solicitor and client) prescribed in the relevant Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination (SAT Determination) made by the Legal Costs Committee under s 275 of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA). Where the Tribunal makes an order for costs and fixes or assesses the amount of costs, the Tribunal applies 'as a useful guide as to the maximum rates which might be allowed on a party/party basis, the relevant hourly or daily rate specified in the [SAT Determination]'.[205]
[205] Legal Professional Complaints Committee and in de Braekt [2012] WASAT 58 (S); (2012) 80 SR (WA) 194 [53] (Judge Parry DP, Ms H Leslie M and Ms K Kemp SessM).
The Board submits that 'it is particularly appropriate that there be an order for costs in favour of the Board in respect of the entire action - there are no grounds for discounting any aspect of the Board's costs and disbursements', because the practitioner 'has put the Board to significant expense by failing to make admissions at any earlier point in time [than on the fourth day of the conduct hearing], despite having competent legal representation throughout the proceedings'.[206]
[206] Board's opening submissions [138].
The practitioner does not oppose an order that she be required to pay the Board's costs of the proceeding, but submits that the Tribunal should take into consideration in the exercise of its discretion 'the length of the proceedings and what appears to have been some difficulties encountered by the Tribunal in the progress of this matter as well as matters that are personal to the impact of the order on [the practitioner]'.[207]
[207] Practitioner's opening submissions [104].
In Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Chang [2019] WASAT 67 (S) at [127] - [129], the Tribunal[208] said the following in relation to its power and discretion to award costs:[209]
[208] Judge Parry DP, Mr D Aitken SM and Ms S Gillett SSessM.
[209] Footnote reproduced in square brackets.
127Subsections (1) and (2) of s 87 of the SAT Act state as follows:
(1)Unless otherwise specified in this Act, the enabling Act, or an order of the Tribunal under this section, parties bear their own costs in a proceeding of the Tribunal.
(2)Unless otherwise specified in the enabling Act, the Tribunal may make an order for the payment by a party of all or any of the costs of another party or of a person required to produce a document or other material on the application of the party under section 35.
128As is apparent from the terms of s 87(1) of the SAT Act and as Murphy JA said in Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32; (2016) 213 LGERA 81 at [50] [Martin CJ at [1] and Corboy J at [75] agreeing]:
… the presumptive position or starting point under s 87(1) of the SAT Act [is] that each party is to bear its own costs.
129For this reason, SAT is often referred to as a generally 'no costs' or 'costsneutral' jurisdiction. However, as is apparent from the terms of s 87(2) of the SAT Act, that provision confers a broad discretion on the Tribunal to make an order for the payment by a party of all or any of the costs of another party in SAT proceedings. As Murphy JA held in Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd at [51], '[t]he onus is on the party seeking an order [for costs] in its favour'. As his Honour also said there:
… generally speaking, the question is whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is fair and reasonable that a party should be reimbursed for the costs it incurred.
In our view, in the circumstances of this case, it is fair and reasonable that the practitioner should pay the Board's costs of this proceeding in an amount fixed by the Tribunal. It is well established that vocational regulatory bodies, such as the Board, 'perform a function which promotes the public interest, and usually with limited resources' and '[t]he financial burden of bringing disciplinary action if the body had no capacity to recover some or all of its costs may be such as to provide a disincentive to bring disciplinary action, or when brought, to ensure that the allegations against the practitioner concerned are properly and thoroughly presented'.[210] It is plainly in the public interest, in terms of protection of the public in their dealings with pharmacists, for the Board to have referred this matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that the practitioner committed serious professional misconduct and that a reprimand and a substantial period of suspension from practice is the appropriate disciplinary consequence of that professional misconduct.
[210] Medical Board of Western Australia and Roberman [2005] WASAT 81 (S); (2005) 39 SR (WA) 47 [30] (Judge Chaney DP, Dr K McKenna SSessM, Dr P Quartermass SSessM and Brig A Warner SSessM) referred to with approval in Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361 [35] (Buss JA, Wheeler JA [1] and Pullin JA [2] agreeing).
In Western Australian Planning Commission and Scutti [2019] WASAT 99 at [42] [43] and [86] [87], the Tribunal[211] reviewed the principles in relation to fixing or assessing the amount of costs where it makes a costs order as follows:[212]
[211] Judge Parry DP.
[212] Footnotes reproduced in square brackets.
42Section 89 of the SAT Act concerns the assessment of the amount of costs where an order for costs is made by the Tribunal, and states as follows:
If the Tribunal makes an order under this Division for the payment of costs and does not fix the amount of costs, that amount is to be assessed or settled in accordance with the rules.
43As contemplated by the terms of s 89 of the SAT Act, the Tribunal may and often does fix the amount of costs, if, and at the time when, it makes an order for costs under s 87(2) of the SAT Act. The Tribunal assesses costs 'in a relatively robust fashion' [Marvelle Investments Pty Ltd and Argyle Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] WASAT 125 (S) at [49]; see, for example, Medical Board of Australia and Woollard [2012] WASAT 209 (S); (2012) 82 SR (WA) 377 at [49]-[56]; and Medical Board of Australia and Costley [2013] WASAT 2; (2013) 83 SR (WA) 1 at [66]-[71]], consistently with its main objectives set out in s 9 of the SAT Act, in particular, 'to act as speedily and with as little formality and technicality as is practicable, and to minimise the costs to parties'. As the Tribunal has said, 'any award [of costs] should be approached in a broad fashion and should not have to descend into [an] enquiry into small items of expenditure' [Perth Central Holdings Pty Ltd and Doric Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] WASAT 302; (2008) 60 SR (WA) 194 at [67]], and:
[T]he preferable approach is not to look at what has actually been charged to the client, but rather what reasonable allowance should be made, taking a robust and broad brush approach, for the work necessarily done to bring the proceedings to a conclusion. [Medical Board of Australia and Costley at [66]]
…
86The Tribunal has consciously adopted a 'stringent approach to costs' in order to maintain proportionality between the subject matter of the proceedings and the costs associated with the proceedings, and to minimise the costs incurred by all participants [Marvelle Investments Pty Ltd and Argyle Holdings Pty Ltd at [35]]. In J & P Metals Pty Ltd and Shire of Dardanup [2006] WASAT 282 (S) the Tribunal said the following at [38]:
The procedures of the Tribunal are designed to achieve the objectives prescribed by s 9 of the SAT Act. The Tribunal strives to ensure that its procedures are proportionate to the nature of the matters in issue. On occasions, matters before the Tribunal are difficult and complex, sometimes involving lengthy hearings. This is not such a matter. In the unusual event that an order for costs is made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal's obligation to minimise the costs to parties will be reflected in the costs assessed by the Tribunal as recoverable. That approach reflects an expectation that representatives of parties before the Tribunal will approach a proceedings [sic] in a way that minimises costs to their clients. If clients choose to approach proceedings before the Tribunal in a way which substantially increases costs for them, it will be a rare case where that increase in costs will be recoverable through a favourable costs order.
87The same approach is adopted by the Tribunal in relation to assessment of costs for experts' fees. As the Tribunal said in Moftah and APG Homes Pty Ltd [2013] WASAT 23; (2013) 84 SR (WA) 131 at [13]:
… The Tribunal will exercise its discretion so as to further the objectives of the Tribunal of providing an informal, flexible and inexpensive means of resolving disputes. This involves considerations of proportionality between the amount of costs and the nature and magnitude of the dispute. … [See also Winterbourn and Western Australian Planning Commission [2013] WASAT 72 at [47]-[55]]
The 'difficulties encountered by the Tribunal in the progress of the matter' referred to in the practitioner's submissions appears to relate to the reconstitution of the Tribunal under s 11(8) of the SAT Act. We accept that the Board's costs of appearing at directions hearings necessitated by the reconstitution of the Tribunal should not be included in the assessment of costs, because they resulted from the Tribunal's processes. Furthermore, in our view, the practitioner should not be required to pay the costs of the Board which resulted from the defective Minute of Agreed Statement of Facts and Findings filed on 12 July 2019, the programming of the matter for completion of the conduct hearing (which ultimately did not occur) and the programming of the matter for the resolution of 'the issue of knowledge' (which ultimately was resolved by the parties), because the parties are both responsible for those matters.
Applying the principles for fixing costs in Tribunal proceedings where a costs order is made, which were reviewed in Western Australian Planning Commission and Scutti in the passages set out at [143] above, in our view, a reasonable allowance for the work necessary for the conduct of this proceeding by the Board that should be fixed in the costs order (including disbursements) is as follows:
Expenditure item
Number of hours/days
Allowance (including GST)
Preparation and lodgement of SAT application
4 hours
$1,628 (at $407 per hour)
Preparation for and attendance at mediation (solicitor)
4 hours
$1,628 (at $407 per hour)
Preparation for and attendance at hearing of interim application to strike out proceeding (solicitor)
12 hours
$4,884 (at $407 per hour)
Preparation for and attendance at interim application to strike out proceeding (counsel)
12 hours
$3,960 (at $330 per hour)
Preparation of evidence for conduct hearing (solicitor)
8 hours
$3,344 (at $418 per hour)
Preparation for and attendance at directions hearing (solicitor)
1 hour
$418 (at $418 per hour)
Preparation for and attendance at four day conduct hearing (solicitor)
48 hours
$20,064 (at $418 per hour)
Preparation for and attendance at four day conduct hearing (counsel)
6 days
$20,460 (at $3,410 per day)
Preparation for and attendance at directions hearing to list penalty hearing (solicitor)
1 hour
$418 (at $418 per hour)
Preparation for (including written opening submissions) and attendance at two day penalty hearing (solicitor)
20 hours
$8,360 (at $418 per hour)
Preparation for (including written opening submissions) and attendance at two day penalty hearing (counsel)
3 days
$10,890 (at $3,630 per day)
Written closing submissions (solicitor)
8 hours
$3,344 (at $418 per hour)
Written closing submissions (counsel)
10 hours
$3,630 (at $363 per hour)
Preparation for and attendance at directions hearing on 20 July 2021 in relation to applicable law (solicitor)
3 hours
$1,254 (at $418 per hour)
Preparation for and attendance at directions hearing on 10 August 2021 in relation to applicable law including review of practitioner's written submissions (solicitor)
2 hours
$836 (at $418 per hour)
Written submissions in relation to applicable law (solicitor)
2 hours
$836 (at $418 per hour)
Written submissions in relation to applicable law (counsel)
2 hours
$726 (at $363 per hour)
SAT application fee
$457
Expert's fees
$1,354.50
SAT Summons fee
$38
SAT hearing fee (conduct hearing)
$2,000
Transcript cost
$4,570.20
SAT hearing fee (penalty hearing)
$550
Total
$95,649.70
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the appropriate disciplinary consequence of the practitioner's professional misconduct the subject of the conduct order is as follows:
1.Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law the practitioner is reprimanded; and
2.Pursuant to s 196(2)(d) of the National Law the practitioner's registration is suspended for a period of two years and six months from the date to be specified in the final order.
For the reasons set out above, pursuant to s 87(2) of the SAT Act, the practitioner should be ordered to pay the Board's costs of this proceeding fixed in the amount of $95,649.70 by the date to be specified in the final order.
We will hear the parties' submissions in relation to the dates from which the suspension of the practitioner's registration should commence and by which she should be required to pay the Board's costs of this proceeding in the amount fixed by the Tribunal.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
JUDGE D R PARRY, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
20 OCTOBER 2021
2
22
10