Psychology Board of Australia v Walton
[2025] QCAT 359
•13 May 2025 (Ex tempore)
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Psychology Board of Australia v Walton [2025] QCAT 359
PARTIES:
PSYCHOLOGY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA (applicant)
v
ROBERT JAMES WALTON (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR75-24
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
13 May 2025 (Ex tempore)
HEARING DATE:
13 May 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member Dick SC
Assisted by:
Dr P Glazebrook
Ms N TaggeselleORDERS:
IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’), the respondent’s conduct, as alleged in grounds 1-3 of the referral constitutes, when taken together, professional misconduct as defined by subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law.
2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.
3. Pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this order.
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), publication of:
(a) the contents of a document or other thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
(b) evidence given before the Tribunal;
(c) any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal;
is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the complainant save as provided for by the terms of this order and save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings, or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings, and for the applicant or the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to exercise each of their statutory functions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).
2. Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by:
(d) a judicial member;
(e) a tribunal member;
(f) an associate to a judicial officer or tribunal member appointed under relevant legislation;
(g) any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal;
(h) the staff of the Tribunal registry;
(i) any judicial officer, court staff or associate dealing with any appeal or review arising from these proceedings; or
(j) the parties to these proceedings or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings.
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
P Morreau KC instructed by Clayton Utz
Respondent:
D Schneidewin instructed by Mills Oakley
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is a referral of a matter to the Tribunal for hearing and determination under section 193B(2) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’). It concerns the conduct of the respondent, who first gained registration as a psychologist on 8 February 1990.
On 16 September 2020, the Office of the Health Ombudsman (‘OHO’) received a notification from a person, referred to as the complainant in these proceedings, that the respondent had failed to maintain professional boundaries with her while providing her professional supervision in 2019 and 2020. There were three periods of supervision, totalling eleven months, in 2019 and 2020.
The allegations arising out of the conduct are characterised by the respondent supervising the complainant, a young female practitioner who was vulnerable due to her age, level of experience and the nature of the supervision relationship.[1] In these proceedings, the Psychology Board of Australia (‘Board’) seeks a finding that the respondent has behaved in a manner constituting professional misconduct in the course of his supervision of the complainant.
[1]Amended Statement of Agreed Facts, Characterisation and Determination, filed in the Tribunal 9 May 2025, [14] (‘Amended Statement of Agreed Facts’).
The particulars of the allegations are set out in the Amended Statement of Agreed Facts,[2] made exhibit one in these proceedings.
[2]Ibid.
The first allegation is that the respondent breached the Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics 2007 (‘APS Code of Ethics’) and various guidelines developed by the Board or Australian Psychological Society. In relation to allegation one, a supervisee is a client for the purpose of the APS Code of Ethics.
As I stated earlier, the complainant was a young female practitioner vulnerable by virtue of her age, level of experience and the supervisor-supervisee relationship, and therefore, there was a power imbalance between the respondent and the complainant. Such a matter is clearly identified in the APS Code of Ethics and in the guidelines which have been mentioned.
After the Board decided to take immediate action and suspend the respondent’s registration on or about 15 October 2020. On 8 February 2021, the form of immediate action was varied, and conditions were imposed on his registration. He did not renew his registration in 2021 and is currently unregistered. The significance of that is that that does not allow the Tribunal to impose conditions or suspend his registration because, put simply, he does not have one.
Allegation one is that he breached professional boundaries with the complainant by making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature, making inappropriate physical contact and engaging in inappropriate contact by telephone calls, texting and attending her musical performances. The particulars of that conduct is set out in exhibit one, and I will not go through them in detail.
Allegation two is that he charged the complainant a fee for private supervision in circumstances where it was unethical or otherwise not appropriate, and in doing so, failed to have proper regard to the power imbalance in the supervision relationship.
Allegation three is broadly put as that he failed to maintain any or any adequate records of his supervision of the complainant.
Much of the evidence relating to each of the allegations is produced from Dr Emma Collins, a clinical and forensic psychologist, who has provided opinions by reference to the applicable ethical standards and guidelines. Dr Collins opined that:[3]
[3]Applicant’s Opening Submissions, filed in the Tribunal 6 September 2024, 11-12 [52].
(a)the respondent did not consider the inappropriateness of attending the musical performances;
(b)he did not establish a clear framework for the supervision relationship, particularly prior to the second and third periods, in that:
(i) there was a lack of clarity about fees;
(ii) the agreement was not documented in writing;
(iii) there was no agreed method for review or termination if necessary;
This failure was ‘below the standard expected’ for someone with the respondent’s level of experience.
(c)during the third supervision period, which was the period when he made personal disclosures, he did not take steps to maintain professional boundaries in breach of the APS Code of Ethics;
(d)he continued to contact the complainant after, on his account, she had declared her feelings, when he should have ceased that behaviour;
(e)failing to keep records was significant, and was ‘significantly below the standard expected’ of someone of his experience; and
(f)charging a fee for supervision and conducting it privately was both unusual and inappropriate and further blurred the boundaries in the relationship.
Additionally, there were a number of text messages between 3 August 2020 and 31 August 2020, some eight in number. It is agreed that:[4]
(a)his conduct, in both the meetings and in the text messages, failed to consider the power dynamic between supervisor and supervisee and violated professional boundaries by shifting the relationship from a professional one to a personal one; and
(b)he should have, during that period of time, sought guidance from a peer or senior psychologist about his relationship with the complainant, including in relation to appropriately managing those professional boundaries; and
(c)in respect of the second and third supervisory periods, he failed to develop a clear framework for the supervision relationship to establish the intended purposes of the supervision, as well as the rights and responsibilities of both parties, including the maintenance of clear boundaries.
[4]Amended Statement of Agreed Facts (n 1) [24]-[25].
Discussion and sanction
The onus of proof is on the applicant to the Briginshaw v Briginshaw[5] standard; a well-recognised standard.
[5](1938) 60 CLR 336.
The function the Tribunal is performing is one of sanction, not punishment, and the primary consideration for the Tribunal is the protection of the public and the maintenance of professional standards.
The parties agree that, either viewed as a course of conduct in relation to allegation one, or taking each of the characterised instances as professional misconduct; and including allegations two and three, which amount to unprofessional conduct, globally amounts to professional misconduct under limbs (a) and (b) of the definition in the National Law. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that that is a reasonable position and accords with what would have happened had the matter not been agreed. As I said, it is still for the Tribunal to act independently in coming to the characterisation, but the Tribunal is satisfied that it is within that definition.
When it comes to sanction, the parties have acknowledged it would only be if the Tribunal thought that the proposed sanction was outside the proper boundaries that the Tribunal would interfere or make a different order. The Tribunal has discussed the matter at some length before the hearing and listened to the submissions in the hearing, and accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sanction proposed is an appropriate one. I thank you for the preparation of the draft order. The Tribunal notes that it includes a reprimand, which has often been said to be not a trivial penalty, and that there has been an indication given from the Bar Table that the respondent does not intend to reapply or seek to work as a psychologist again.
0