Shahinper v Psychology Board of Australia

Mr Shahinper, a psychologist, sought to challenge a decision by the Psychology Board of Australia to impose immediate action conditions on his registration, including a requirement that he not consult, assess, or treat any female patients. The Board had decided to take this action based on notifications alleging that Mr Shahinper had engaged in sexual relationships with two patients. Mr Shahinper argued that the Board's decision was unreasonable and that the conditions imposed were too onerous and unnecessary to protect public health and safety. The court was required to determine whether the Board's decision was legally sound and whether the conditions imposed were appropriate.

The court found that the proceeding was not an appeal but a review under the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It examined the Board's decision-making process and the evidence available at the time of the decision. The court concluded that the Board's reasons for imposing the conditions were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the Board's belief that Mr Shahinper posed a serious risk to persons was not reasonable, given the state of the evidence. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions imposed were not necessary to protect public health and safety and were overly restrictive. The court allowed the application, set aside the conditions, and denied the non-publication order, while prohibiting the publication of any material that might identify the patients.