Health Ombudsman v RKE[2024] QCAT 290

1. [1]
   DEPUTY PRESIDENT: These proceedings involve two disciplinary referrals by the Health Ombudsman (OHO) against RKE, a pharmacist. 

Allegations and response

2. [2]
   The first referral, OCR 149 of 2023, is for a criminal conviction for one count of obtaining financial advantage by deception pursuant to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Code).  The amount involved was $1,942,514.44. 
3. [3]
   RKE was an approved pharmacist able to receive payments under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for medications dispensed from a pharmacy he operated. On 697 occasions, between 5 January 2017 and 1 May 2020, RKE submitted false claims and received payment under the PBS for medication that was not supplied. 
4. [4]
   These false claims related to the alleged dispensing of PBS medications to 69 patients, prescribed by 50 doctors.  The prescriptions had never been written by the named doctors and the medications were not dispensed to the named patients and included prescriptions for patients who were deceased.^[1] 
5. [5]
   RKE was convicted on his own plea of guilty in the District Court of Queensland on 14 March 2023 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months. 
6. [6]
   The second referral, OCR 236 of 2023, involves three allegations, namely that:

1. RKE was convicted of one count of contravening a police protection notice (PPN) pursuant to s 178(2) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (DFVPA);
2. RKE failed to give the Pharmacy Board of Australia (Board) written notice of being charged with this offence or being found guilty of it, thereby contravening section 130 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law); and
3. On 29 November 2022, some two weeks after his plea of guilty and conviction for that offence, RKE made a false statement in his application for renewal of his registration as pharmacist by answering “no” to the question: 

Since your last declaration to Ahpra, has there been any change to your criminal history in Australia that you have not declared to Ahpra? 

This is because, as at 29 November 2022, RKE had a criminal history and, as at that date, he had not previously notified or declared that he had a criminal history to the National Board or Ahpra. 

7. [7]
   RKE provided his response to each of the referrals orally at a directions hearing on 13 October 2023 before me.  He admitted the factual matters the subject of the allegations contained in each allegation on the referral.  He said at the directions hearing, when his plea was taken, that whilst he admitted he committed the contravention of the PPN, he was not aware that he was meant to tell the Board about that and, when renewing his registration, he did not think about the conviction, as he thought it was a family law matter and he was distracted by the five-year prison term that was ahead of him at that time. RKE largely repeated those submissions today. 
8. [8]
   RKE appears for himself today by telephone whilst in custody.  The matters have been listed today for resolution, as RKE indicated on the 13th of October 2023 that he “just wanted to get the matters over and done with”.^[2] 

Orders sought

9. [9]
   The OHO seeks that the Tribunal make findings and orders characterising RKE’s conduct for each of the allegations on the referral as professional misconduct and for a sanction that involves:

1. a reprimand;
2. cancellation of registration; and
3. disqualification from applying for registration for a period of eight years from today. 

10. [10]
    It also seeks consequential orders that the immediate registration order imposed by the OHO on 13 March 2023 be set aside and there be no order as to costs. 

The respondent’s submissions at hearing

11. [11]
    RKE confirmed he did not provide written submissions in respect of the direction to do so as a conscious decision.  He stated he was not interested in being an approved pharmacist or in owning or running a PBS pharmacy.  If possible, he stated he wanted to remain a compounding pharmacist.  He accepted, however, that there was no separate registration category for compounding pharmacists only. 
12. [12]
    Otherwise, he variously castigated the OHO for perceived delay.  He alleged, without evidence, that the OHO was blatantly lying about the duration of the conditions on his registration in 2014.  He says he did not know, as I have indicated, that he had to inform the Board or Ahpra about the conviction and fine for breaching the PPN and he asks for a non-publication order to cover members of his family, given the PPN matter. 

RKE’s professional and disciplinary history

13. [13]
    I turn now to RKE’s professional qualifications and disciplinary history.  RKE, who is currently 45 years old, obtained his bachelors qualification in pharmacy in New Zealand in 2006 and was first registered to practise on 8 January 2007. 
14. [14]
    He has a relevant professional and disciplinary history.  In 2014, after a hearing conducted by a performance and professional standards panel, in accordance with the hearing processes set out in the in the National Law, a finding was made of unprofessional conduct and unsatisfactory professional performance in relation to RKE being absent from the pharmacy for a period exceeding one hour, without arranging another pharmacist to be in attendance. 
15. [15]
    RKE was cautioned and the Board imposed restrictions on his registration which required him to undertake the course “Ethics and Dispensing in Pharmacy Practice”.  He was also to participate in a face-to-face mentoring program to occur twice-weekly for three months, to focus on issues including professional practices, processes, responsibilities and decision making. 
16. [16]
    Between 2014 and 2018, RKE engaged in extensive communications with Ahpra about compliance with the conditions.  Ultimately, the Board was satisfied with compliance and the conditions were removed on 11 December 2018. 
17. [17]
    The Tribunal does not accept, in the circumstances, RKE’s submission and it is apparent that RKE had commenced his course of defrauding the PBS whilst those conditions remained on his registration. 
18. [18]
    In October 2017, after another hearing conducted by a performance and professional standards panel, a finding was made of unprofessional conduct and unsatisfactory professional performance in relation to inappropriate communications and two particular patient issues.  On this occasion, RKE was reprimanded and education conditions were imposed on his registration, the effect of which was to restrict his contact with the public.  There was also the power to access records for auditing purposes.  Those conditions were removed on 25 February 2020.  It was apparent he was engaged in his course of defrauding the PBS whilst these conditions were on his registration. 
19. [19]
    By way of further background, RKE has also been cautioned by the Board on occasions including, firstly, on 8 October 2014, for conduct that he failed to provide care to the complainant in a compassionate and professional manner.  The underlying facts apparently involved him calling the police to remove the complainant from his pharmacy, whilst realising that the complainant was not well.  The OHO advances this information simply as background material. 
20. [20]
    Secondly, and directly relevantly, in the Tribunal’s mind, to these proceedings, RKE was cautioned by the Board on the 21 August 2018 for failing to give the National Board notice of a relevant event pursuant to s 130 of the National Law.  That event was that he was charged with serious assault of a public officer performing a function and use of a carriage service to make a threat to cause serious harm. 
21. [21]
    Of particular relevance to the Tribunal’s mind is that the notice of the Board’s decision, dated 21 August 2018, to RKE, referred specifically to s 130 of the National Law, that the relevant event was defined as a charge, whether in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, of an offence which was punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or more.  It observed RKE had failed to demonstrate insight and responsibility in relation to his professional obligations in that matter, because of his submission that he had engaged solicitors and he expected they would have told him if a notification was necessary and, in any case, the OHO was notified by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) of the charges.  It reminded RKE that s 130 of the National Law:

1. places the onus on practitioners to provide the Board with notice of relevant events and that the responsibility is not delegable; and
2. the caution would serve to ensure RKE was aware of his obligations under the National Law moving forward. 

22. [22]
    On 13 March 2023, the day before he was taken into custody, the OHO took immediate registration action and suspended RKE’s registration.  As at today, RKE’s registration has been suspended for a little over 16 months. 

What must the Tribunal determine?

23. [23]
    The Tribunal is required to determine whether RKE’s conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional performance, unprofessional conduct, or professional misconduct, and then to consider the sanction which is to be imposed. 

Should the conduct be characterised as professional misconduct?

24. [24]
    The OHO submits the Tribunal should make a finding of professional misconduct in relation to the conduct overall and that each aspect of the conduct readily falls within the three limbs of the definition of “professional misconduct” in the National Law.^[3] 
25. [25]
    In terms of the fraud, the Health Ombudsman points to, firstly, the fraud on the PBS being deliberate, planned and extensive, with RKE receiving from the Commonwealth funds just short of $2 million.  There is authority, which I will deal with further, that a fraud of the PBS by a pharmacist is to be characterised as professional misconduct within limbs A and C of the definition, when it involves serious criminal offences that are not isolated and were deliberate. 
26. [26]
    The fraud in the particular matter, which was the matter of Pharmacy Board of Australia v Hopkinson,^[4] referred to in the Health Ombudsman’s submission, involved 71 PBS claims over a 15-month period, containing false information without items being dispensed to the patient or an authorised person.  The conduct in that case was deliberate and the pharmacist in question did not desist when she was discovered.  The value was $22,418.99. 
27. [27]
    It can be seen that the Hopkinson matter involved value of 10 per cent of the magnitude of the fraud in this case and approximately one-tenth of the fraudulent claims in this case; nonetheless, it was said to be conduct whichrendered the practitioner not a fit and proper person. 
28. [28]
    The Health Ombudsman also points to authority that where a nurse claiming Newstart allowance of $10,000 over 17 months and gave false and misleading explanations to the Board and to Ahpra,^[5] the Tribunal’s finding was that money obtained by deception from the Commonwealth is dishonest, improper and a misappropriation of public funds, and its observation was that this fraud alone would render the practitioner in that case to be regarded as not a fit and proper person to be a nurse. 
29. [29]
    The Tribunal stated in that case, at [18]:

The conduct manifests the presence or absence of qualities during, compatible with, or essential for the conduct of nursing practice.  The Centrelink conduct falls within that category, in that it is conduct over a lengthy period, involving substantial amounts of money and which would, on its own, render the practitioner liable to be regarded as not a fit and proper person to be a nurse. 

30. [30]
    RKE accepted today that he did the wrong thing by the taxpayers and he said that he had tried to accept his punishment.  He said his conduct was based on need and not greed because of a rival pharmacy opening up very close by.  That is consistent with the explanation which was provided at the criminal sentence.  Of course, however, it does not excuse or in any way reduce the magnitude of the conduct. 
31. [31]
    RKE’s conduct in defrauding the PBS was repeated conduct sustained over three years and four months.  On the criminal sentence in the District Court, the sentencing judge noted the offending involved repeated claims over a long period.  The offending was brazen, involving, as it did, transactions that related to deceased patients, and it continued until the respondent was placed on notice of the investigation.  There was a degree of sophistication about the conduct and it was persistent. 
32. [32]
    A pecuniary penalty order was made, which resulted in the Commonwealth recovering the full amount of the fraud.  However, the scale of the benefits RKE received by the defraud of the PBS was very substantial. 
33. [33]
    Most relevantly from the point of view of the Tribunal, the PBS scheme enables pharmacists who are approved under the statutory scheme, which is publicly funded, to make claims through an online PBS claim and payment system.  Payments are made to the approved pharmacist’s nominated bank account and all PBS claims must be authorised by the approved pharmacist. 
34. [34]
    The system operates such that when a PBS prescription is presented at a pharmacy, the details of the prescriber’s and patient’s name, type and quantity of the drug prescribed and dispensed are entered into the pharmacy dispensing system and sent to the Department of Health.  This generates an advance payment of the PBS payment into the bank account, which is prior to the PBS claim being finalised and certified.  The advance payment ensures that pharmacists can maintain adequate stocks of medication.  PBS claims are finalised and certified by the approved pharmacist on a regular basis. 
35. [35]
    As the approved pharmacist in his pharmacy, RKE was able to receive the PBS payments for medications dispensed from his pharmacy.  The bank account was in his name and he was the sole signatory.  He was also the sole approved pharmacist. 
36. [36]
    The Tribunal has no hesitation in finding RKE’s conduct in defrauding the PBS over a lengthy period and of a substantial sum on numerous occasions, strikes at the very heart of the honest operation of one of the major branches of publicly funded health services in this country.  It constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of that term in paragraph (c) of the definition of “professional misconduct” in the National Law; that is, it is conduct which is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession. 
37. [37]
    Turning to the second referral.  As to the breach of the PPN, the OHO submits RKE, as the respondent deliberately defied the protection notice imposed by sending numerous text messages to the aggrieved.  The OHO submits there cannot be said to have been any confusion or misunderstanding on his part, given the order had been served on him only two days previously.  The PPN contained the requisite mandatory conditions. 
38. [38]
    The transcript before the magistrate itemised there were seven text messages sent over approximately a one and a-quarter hour period on one evening.  The contents of these messages appear in the documents before the Tribunal.  In summary, the respondent called the aggrieved names and subjected the aggrieved to some abuse and threats that Family Court proceedings would be started immediately. 
39. [39]
    The OHO has referred the Tribunal to Medical Board of Australia v Mandy,^[6] for the principle that email communications outside the scope of permitted communications and in breach of a Family Court order, which were admitted to constitute domestic violence, constituted a blatant disregard for the conditions of a court order and showed a lack of respect for the law. 
40. [40]
    In Mandy, the factual circumstances involved 33 emails in breach over approximately eight months, with some conduct occurring after the practitioner had already been charged.  As such, the factual circumstances in Mandy were more frequent and over a much more protracted period, making the facts considerably more serious than in RKE’s case. 
41. [41]
    The judicial member noted the conduct there was of such a nature and duration as to bring the medical profession into disrepute.  In those circumstances, the Tribunal found the conduct before it constituted professional misconduct, as it was conduct substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner. 
42. [42]
    Relevantly, the Tribunal in that case noted that some types of domestic violence, sometimes called coercive behaviour, is becoming more apparent and attitudes to it are changing.  The Tribunal endorses those sentiments. 
43. [43]
    In this case, the text messages were sent in a short span, on one occasion.  They clearly sought impermissibly to change the aggrieved’s conduct through disrespectful name-calling and threats.  They occurred at a time when it is accepted that RKE was facing the significant criminal sanction and could be said to be under some stress.  Whilst not condoning that in any way, the OHO, when asked by the Tribunal, accepted that it was possible that the conduct should be characterised as unprofessional conduct and, in this case, the Tribunal is of the view that this conduct taken alone is unprofessional conduct; that is, conduct below the standard expected of a registered health practitioner.  I will deal with aggregation in a moment. 
44. [44]
    The second and third aspects of this referral involve RKE failing to notify the Board when he was charged with the breach of the PPN and again when he pleaded guilty and was convicted, with no conviction recorded, and then RKE, on the renewal of his registration, falsely stating there had been no change to his criminal history since the previous period of registration, when he had in fact been charged with the contravention, which was an offence punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or more, he had pleaded guilty to it and had been convicted of it, with the conviction not recorded. 
45. [45]
    Whilst the Tribunal has observed that breach of the statutory duty to report criminal charges and convictions is usually secondary to the original misconduct and its usual effect is to add a relatively minor aggravation to the totality of conduct to be considered,^[7] in this case, the allegations need to be considered against the disciplinary history.  Given the earlier written caution for failing to give the Board notice of the relevant event pursuant to s 130 of the National Law in 2018, which expressly reminded RKE that the onus to meet the requirements of s 130 of the National Law was on him and that the caution would inform him of his professional obligations moving forward, the Tribunal accepts the submission that these matters alone constitute professional misconduct and, taken together with the first allegation, amount to professional misconduct within paragraph (a) of the definition in s 5 of the National Law. 

What is the appropriate sanction?

46. [46]
    It is important that these proceedings are protective in nature and not punitive.  The paramount principle of the regulatory scheme is to protect the health and safety of the public.  The scheme’s objects include to promote professional practice by health practitioners and to maintain public confidence in the management of complaints and other matters relating to the provision of health services. 
47. [47]
    The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is also to maintain professional standards and public confidence in the profession and to protect the public.  The sanction in a particular case must be considered based on the peculiar facts of that case and with something crafted which best achieves these purposes. 
48. [48]
    The factors for the Tribunal to consider when determining what sanction is appropriate include:

1. the nature and seriousness of the conduct;
2. whether the practitioner acknowledges culpability and whether there is evidence of contrition or remorse;
3. what needs for specific or general deterrence arise;
4. whether there have been other disciplinary findings before or after the conduct in question;
5. evidence of character and evidence of rehabilitation; the ongoing risks posed by the practitioner; and
6. that personal matters, such as shame, personal ordeal and financial difficulty, are of little relevance, save insofar as they contribute to the specific deterrence of the practitioner. 

Nature and seriousness of the conduct

49. [49]
    The Tribunal records its view that the conduct the subject of the first referral represents an egregious breach of professional responsibilities.  The fraud of the PBS is properly characterised as extensive and prolonged, as the OHO submits. 
50. [50]
    The PBS system relies on practitioners acting with integrity and honesty, which RKE abused for his own financial benefit.  Clearly, he was cognisant of the impropriety of his actions, as he tried to reverse some transactions once he was aware of the investigation into his conduct. 
51. [51]
    As noted earlier, his course of conduct was underway whilst he was under a condition which required education on the ethics of dispensing, and it continued after that condition ended, and his conduct was proceeding when he was subject to other disciplinary notifications and proceedings, as already set out. 
52. [52]
    The conduct in the second referral adds to the seriousness of the overall circumstances, in that it demonstrates an ongoing level of disregard for rules governing behaviour in accordance with community expectations.  Domestic violence offending is a matter of serious community concern.  RKE’s failure to comply with statutory obligations to notify, especially when those had been brought to his attention in earlier lower-level disciplinary conduct, compounds his conduct because he failed to learn the lesson from earlier actions by his professional body. 
53. [53]
    Section 41 of the National Law provides that an approved registration standard for a health profession or a code or guideline approved by a National Board is admissible in proceedings against a health practitioner registered in a health profession as evidence of what constitutes appropriate professional conduct or practice for the health profession. 
54. [54]
    By reference to the ‘Pharmacy Board of Australia Code of Conduct’, March 2014, which applied until mid-2022 and, therefore, was the code applicable during the period relating to the conduct the subject of the referral, articulated standards of conduct for a pharmacist included:

1. that a pharmacist must be ethical and trustworthy and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion;
2. patients or clients also rely on practitioners to protect their confidentiality;
3. practitioners have a responsibility to contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the healthcare system;
4. practitioners are to support the transparent and equitable allocation of healthcare resources and understanding that the use of resources can affect the access other patients or clients have to health resources; and
5. that a pharmacist must display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community.  This includes observing and practising the principles of ethical conduct. 

55. [55]
    The Tribunal finds that RKE’s conduct in the referral fell far short of each of these standards of conduct. 

Insight, remorse and future risk

56. [56]
    Insight into conduct is a very important part of determining what is an appropriate sanction.  Whether a practitioner understands truly their error and its impact is relevant. 
57. [57]
    In the sentence for the PBS offending, the sentencing judge observed RKE seems to be remorseful, that the plea of guilty was timely, that the consent to the pecuniary penalty order for the total amount of the fraud involved cooperation in the process and was indicative of remorse and that, on the material before him, which involved a report of a psychologist, there was a low risk of reoffending.  The fact there were no further offences between discovery of the PBS fraud and sentence, the sentencing judge also said, confirmed good prospects of rehabilitation. 
58. [58]
    Of course, because it was not relevant to him, the sentencing judge did not have RKE’s professional disciplinary history before him and, for criminal law sentencing purposes, did not have regard to the PPN offending.  However, given the focus in this proceeding is on protection of the public, these matters are all relevant to this hearing. 
59. [59]
    The practitioner’s disciplinary history suggests someone who struggles to comply with rules and standards expected of professional people.  The protracted course of dishonesty represents a betrayal of the trust placed in approved pharmacists to only seek payment for PBS prescriptions actually presented and filled, and a betrayal of the trust patients place in pharmacies when they present prescriptions that their information will not be misused. 
60. [60]
    From his submissions today, RKE has some insight, in that he has told the Tribunal he is accepting his punishment and that he has tried, in so doing, to apologise.  The Tribunal notes those submissions. 
61. [61]
    His request to retain registration as a compounding pharmacist, however, demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the significant misconduct in his matter and suggests a failure to really grapple with the enormity of what he has done. 
62. [62]
    At the directions hearing in these proceedings on 13 October 2023, the respondent stated he had no knowledge of the s 130 notification requirement or that breach of the notice was a criminal matter.^[8]  He reiterated those statements today.  That is hard to accept, given his disciplinary history and the fact he was dealt with in a criminal court.  It bespeaks an ongoing tendency to a lack of candour. 
63. [63]
    Even taking the view most favourable to RKE in the face of his disciplinary history, one would have expected that, knowing of the existence of s 130 of the National Law, he would have taken steps to enquire what his reporting obligations were in the face of such a charge and conviction and to meet them.  His failure to do so indicates an ongoing failure to appreciate the privileges and responsibilities that come with being a registered health practitioner. 
64. [64]
    There is no evidence before the Tribunal which satisfies the Tribunal that RKE has developed insight into his offending in any really meaningful way.  It follows that both general and specific deterrence considerations arise.  Given the magnitude of the fraud involved, denunciation is also a relevant consideration to reinforce what proper standards of behaviour in the profession are. 

Comparatives and consideration

65. [65]
    Of the three cases provided as comparatives by the OHO, the one which is closest to the current circumstances is Medical Board of Australia v Phan (Review and Regulation).^[9]  It involved a doctor who made 13,465 fraudulent claims on Medicare, totalling $834,188.20 over an almost seven-year period.  The claims were for services which were not provided.  The offending occurred in two blocks, separated by a period of a number of months when no fraudulent claims were lodged. 
66. [66]
    Dr Phan was sentenced to four years, with a non-parole period of two years, after being found guilty of two charges of obtaining property by deception.  He had made restitution of approximately $20,000 of the total amount he was ordered to pay, which was the total amount of the fraud.  He failed to notify the Board of the charges. 
67. [67]
    He was medically assessed for the criminal hearing and diagnosed with adjustment disorder, with mixed anxiety and depression.  He had a gambling addiction, for which he was receiving treatment, and the response provided stated that he did not pose an ongoing risk to the public.  He offended out of greed and opportunity and only stopped when he was caught. 
68. [68]
    He let his registration lapse, so, by the time of the disciplinary hearing, he had been unregistered for two years.  He was reprimanded and disqualified for an effective period of eight years. 
69. [69]
    The Tribunal observed in Phan that the conduct was objectively serious and of itself would warrant cancellation of registration, if that was available, and disqualification because, amongst other things, it was not isolated.  It involved depriving the public health system of a substantial sum.  It was conduct with the capacity to undermine the regard in which members of the public held the profession.  The conduct was deliberate and it was conduct of the kind which would shake the public confidence in the profession if it was not dealt with firmly.  Each of those observations is directly apposite in this case, and the Tribunal adopts them. 
70. [70]
    By comparison with the current case, Dr Phan’s offending period was much longer and it recurred after a period of abstaining.  He made many more fraudulent claims, but he obtained significantly less money.  He had no disciplinary history and did not make full restitution. 
71. [71]
    Overall, the OHO accepts that the current case can properly be regarded by the Tribunal as broadly equivalent to that in Phan.  There was a greater amount defrauded in this case and RKE, in this case, has a relevant disciplinary history, but those matters have to be balanced by the fact that Dr Phan’s conduct recurred and his number of false claims was very significantly higher. 
72. [72]
    Taking into account the serious conduct involved, the Tribunal is satisfied that RKE is not a fit and proper person to hold registration and it is appropriate to make an order cancelling his registration as a pharmacist and to impose a significant period of disqualification. 
73. [73]
    In making such an order, the Tribunal stresses that, at the end of the disqualification period, there is no guarantee that RKE will be re-registered.  If RKE seeks re-registration after the disqualification period ends, he will need to persuade the Board that he should be re-registered. 
74. [74]
    As to the period of disqualification, it needs to be substantial.  Recognising the period of 16 months which RKE has already been suspended for and thus negating any issues about alleged delay by the OHO in bringing these matters to conclusion, the Tribunal determines that the disqualification period will be until 13 March 2032, which is approximately seven years and eight months from today and an effective disqualification period in total of nine years.  That period is set out a little longer than in Phan, primarily because of RKE’s prior disciplinary history and the magnitude of the fraud involved. 
75. [75]
    There will also be a reprimand imposed, and it is accepted by the Tribunal that a reprimand, by its nature, is not a trivial penalty. 
76. [76]
    The issue of whether a non-publication needed to be made was canvassed in submissions today.  In view of the contents of allegation 1 in the second referral, to ensure compliance with s 159 of the DFVPA, the Tribunal will make a non-publication order for the identity of the respondent and members of his family.  That means that the respondent’s identity will be anonymised when these reasons are made public. 

Orders

1. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the publication of:

1. the contents of a document or other thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
2. evidence given before the Tribunal;
3. any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal;

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of:

4. a party to a proceeding under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld);
5. a witness in a proceeding under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld); or
6. a child concerned in a proceeding under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld);

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 proceeding, and for the applicant to provide information to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency or the Pharmacy Board of Australia in the exercise of the applicant’s functions under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).

2. Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by:

1. a judicial member;
2. a tribunal member;
3. an associate to a judicial officer or tribunal member appointed under relevant legislation;
4. any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal;
5. the staff of the Tribunal registry;
6. any judicial officer, court staff or associate dealing with any appeal or review arising from these proceedings; or
7. the parties to these proceedings or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings.

3. In respect of allegation 1 in proceeding number OCR 149 of 2023, pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
4. In respect of allegations 1, 2 and 3 in proceeding number OCR 236 of 2023, taken in aggregate, pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
5. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.
6. Pursuant to s 107(3)(e) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent’s registration is cancelled.
7. Pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a pharmacist until 13 March 2032.
8. Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the immediate registration action imposed by the Health Ombudsman on 13 March 2023 is set aside.
9. No order as to costs.