Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin (No 2)

[2014] QCAT 553

CITATION: Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin (No 2) [2014] QCAT 553

PARTIES:	Psychology Board of Australia (Applicant)
v
Angela Wakelin (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR054-14

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Hon J B Thomas AM QC, Judicial Member

Assisted by:
Dr Karen Sullivan
Julie Sim
Alison Christou

DELIVERED ON: 3 November 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The Tribunal finds that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2.    The respondent is suspended from registration until 28 February 2015.

3.    The respondent is reprimanded.

4.    The following conditions are imposed on any registration on and from 28 February 2015:

a.    The respondent will practise as a psychologist in a setting to be approved by the Board;

b.    The respondent will practice psychology under workplace supervision, which need not be direct supervision. Offsite supervision may be arranged, provided the psychological practice is in a multi-disciplinary setting and there is easy access to supervision when needed; otherwise the supervisor must be present at the same location and available for reasonable access;

c.    The period of supervised practice should be in accordance with the requirements of the capability ‘Ethical, legal and professional matters’ as described in the 4+2 internship guidelines;

d.    The respondent will provide written reports from her supervisor as follows:

                   i.    Within three, six, nine and twelve months from the respondent's return to practice, or at such other time or times as negotiated with an AHPRA representative for the Board;

                 ii.    Whenever the supervisor holds a concern about her fitness to practice; and

                 iii.    On receipt of a request, whether written or verbal from the Board;

e.    The respondent will provide a written authority to the supervisor to report to the Board as to her fitness and competence to practice;

f.     The respondent will keep a written logbook which records each occasion the respondent works and the name of the supervisor for each occasion. Each entry must be signed by the supervisor and the logbook must be produced to the Board upon request; and

g.    The respondent will not practice independently as a sole practitioner.

5.    Pursuant to s 196(3) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) (the adopted National Law) the review period for the conditions is 12 months from 28 February 2015.[1]

6.    Subdivision 2, Division 11, Part 7 of the adopted National Law applies to the conditions.[2]

7.    The respondent will bear the costs and expenses of meeting the requirements of these orders.

8.    The respondent will pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings, not including those incurred in connection with the application for renewal,[3] as agreed or as assessed.

[1]Decision amended by order of the Tribunal on 4 April 2017.

[2]Decision amended by order of the Tribunal on 4 April 2017.

[3]Decision amended by order of the Tribunal on 4 April 2017.

CATCHWORDS:                   

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE – PSYCHOLOGIST – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – FURTHER ORDERS – where respondent’s registration was renewed – whether suspension order should be imposed

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), s192, s 196

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Further submissions have now been received from the Board.

2. They include information that Ms Wakelin’s registration was in fact renewed from 29 July 2014.

3. This fact activates jurisdiction to impose an actual suspension, and, under s 196(2)(b) of the adopted National Law, to impose conditions on the registration when it recommences.

4. At the request of the Board, in lieu of disqualification of the practitioner (under s 196(4)(a)) from applying for registration until 28 February 2015, a suspension (under s 196(2)(d)) until that date will be included in the order.

5. The draft order presented by the Board sought to include the equivalent of injunctions requiring the practitioner to undertake various courses and counselling during the suspension period. The only power to impose conditions like these is that given by s 196(2)(b) to impose conditions on the practitioner’s registration, and this cannot be done during the suspension period.

6. The desired order for these remedial actions to take place during the suspension period can best be achieved by means of undertakings that are acceptable to the Board. If the practitioner flouts them, she could be declined future registration, or become liable to further disciplinary action.

7. The Board’s further submissions did not directly address its satisfaction with the undertakings concerning courses and counselling during the suspension period, but it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties that they represent the desired outcome.

8. Therefore subject to the deletion of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the draft order (which are sufficiently covered by the undertakings), the above orders have been prepared consistently with the balance of the draft presented by the Board.

9. Having imposed conditions on Ms Wakelin’s registration, under s 196(3) of the adopted National Law the Tribunal is also required to impose a review period for the conditions. The parties have submitted that an appropriate period for review is 12 months. Pursuant to sub-paragraph d of condition 4, the Tribunal has required the provision of written reports from Ms Wakelin’s supervisor at three monthly intervals from her return to practice up to a period of 12 months from her return to practice. It is clear from that condition that the Tribunal was envisaging supervision for a period of 12 months. It would be appropriate at the end of that time for the conditions in question to be reviewed.

10. So as to avoid the parties bringing a further application to this Tribunal at that time, it is necessary to make a further order permitting the Board to deal with the review of the condition.  An order should be made to allow that to occur.[4]

    [4]Decision amended by order of the Tribunal on 4 April 2017.