Cleary v Psychology Board of Australia
[2015] QCAT 168
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Cleary v Psychology Board of Australia[2015] QCAT 168
- Add to List
Cleary v Psychology Board of Australia[2015] QCAT 168
Cleary v Psychology Board of Australia[2015] QCAT 168
CITATION: | Cleary v Psychology Board of Australia [2015] QCAT 168 |
PARTIES: | Catherine Louise Cleary (Applicant) |
v | |
Psychology Board of Australia (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR268-14 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President |
DELIVERED ON: | 1 April 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PSYCHOLOGISTS – disciplinary proceedings – where registrant a registered Psychologist – where Psychology Board of Australia imposed conditions on the registrant after a finding the registrant practiced the profession unsatisfactorily – where registrant seeks review of the conditions imposed – whether a stay of the Psychology Board of Australia’s decision should be granted – where the stay does not expose the public to any particular risk Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld),s 21, s 22(4) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 3(3)(c), s 178, s 179 Sharma v Medical Board of Australia [2014] QCAT 305 |
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]In October 2014, the Psychology Board of Australia imposed conditions on the registration of Ms Cleary, a registered psychologist, because the Board believed that the way in which Ms Cleary practised the profession was unsatisfactory.
- [2]The conditions required Ms Cleary to nominate for the approval of the Board an education program addressing the areas of boundary violations and ethics. She was to nominate that course within 28 days. The conditions also required that within 12 months of the approval of the course she was to satisfactorily complete it and provide written evidence of that completion.
- [3]On 28 November 2014 Ms Cleary filed an application seeking a review of the Board’s decision.
- [4]On 13 February 2015 the Board filed a statement of reasons and a bundle of relevant documents pursuant to s 21 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. Consequent upon that material being filed, Ms Cleary, filed an application to stay the decision under review. In her stay application she states her reasons for seeking a stay as being that she is providing additional evidence to address specifically the concerns of the Psychology Board based on a further understanding of the decision from the material filed.
- [5]The Tribunal may only make an order staying the operation of a reviewable decision if it considers it desirable after having regard to the interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of the order, or the order not being made, any submission made by the decision maker, and the public interest.[1] For its part, the Board does not oppose the stay and makes no submissions.
- [6]In an affidavit, Ms Cleary sets out further matters which she seeks to have taken into consideration, she says, by the Board. It is, of course, for the Tribunal to now consider that material on the review, not the Board. The further evidence goes to the substantive issues on the review rather than reasons for granting a stay. Notwithstanding that, I am of the view that the stay ought be granted.
- [7]The purpose for the imposition of conditions by a National Board is to ensure health services are provided safely and are of appropriate quality.[2] Without a stay, the conditions require Ms Cleary to undertake and complete a course within a 12 month period. In order to ensure compliance with the conditions in the event that they are not removed, given that the substantive review will not be heard and determined by the Tribunal for some time, Ms Cleary would probably have to undertake the course required. In the event that she is ultimately successful, she will have gone to the effort and expense of doing that which is ultimately considered to be unnecessary.
- [8]If, on the other hand, Ms Cleary is unsuccessful on the substantive review, then having delayed the requirement to undertake those courses until after the Tribunal’s decision will not have had any significant adverse impact upon the public interest.
- [9]The events which led to the imposition of the conditions by the Board concern Ms Cleary’s treatment of a patient with whom Ms Cleary’s daughter had attended school and who Ms Cleary has said to have known for some 9 years. From the documents filed in these proceedings it would appear that this treatment occurred in February 2012. Ms Cleary has practised unrestricted, and without the benefit of the further course required by the conditions, from that time until the conditions were imposed in October 2012. If, ultimately, the undertaking of that course by her is delayed for a period, she will still derive the benefit from it and, indirectly, so will the public. However, the public will not have been exposed to any particular risk in the meantime.[3]
- [10]For these reasons, I would grant the stay.