Sabet v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria

In the matter of Sabet v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria, the appellant, Dr. Sabet, sought judicial review of the decision by the respondent Board to suspend his medical licence. The dispute involved the legality of the Board's decision under both administrative and human rights law. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues were whether disproportionality constituted an independent ground for judicial review, whether the Board failed to apply the correct statutory tests, whether it failed to consider relevant factors, and whether it applied irrelevant considerations in its decision-making process. Additionally, the case examined whether the Board qualified as a "public authority" under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, and if so, whether the presumption of innocence applied during the hearing before the Board and, if limited, whether any such limitation was reasonable.

The court found that disproportionality could be an independent ground for judicial review, but in this instance, the Board's decision was proportionate given the gravity of the allegations against Dr. Sabet. The Board was found to have applied the correct statutory tests and relevant considerations, but also applied some irrelevant considerations that did not impact the overall proportionality of the decision. Concerning the Charter, the court determined that the Board was a "public authority" exercising administrative power, and thus the presumption of innocence applied. However, the court upheld the Board's decision to limit this presumption in cases involving serious allegations, finding the limitation reasonable given the context.

The final orders of the court were that the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Board's decision to suspend Dr. Sabet's medical licence was upheld.