Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Paramedicine Board of Australia v BML - [2024] QCAT 427

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Paramedicine Board of Australia v BML[2024] QCAT 427

Paramedicine Board of Australia v BML[2024] QCAT 427

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Paramedicine Board of Australia v BML [2024] QCAT 427

PARTIES:

paramedicine board of australia

(applicant)

v

BML

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR212-23

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2024

HEARING DATE:

On-Papers Hearing

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President

ORDERS:

  1. Until further order, pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), 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 the respondent or any family member of the respondent, 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 and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to provide information to the Office of the Health Ombudsman in the exercise of its statutory functions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).

  1. 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 this proceeding or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where the respondent applied for a non-publication order on the basis of endangering the respondent’s physical or mental health – where the respondent put before the Tribunal expert evidence supporting the need for the order – where the responded has significant mental health concerns – where the Board is neutral to the order – whether a non-publication order should be made – application granted

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89

Health Ombudsman v Shermer (No 2) [2019] QCAT 54

LSC v XBV [2018] QCAT 332

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    The respondent brings an application for a non-publication order on an interlocutory basis.
  2. [2]
    The application is brought pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) on the basis that the evidence filed in support of it engages ss 66(2)(b) and (d) of the QCAT Act.
  3. [3]
    The Board adopts a neutral position and is content to bide the Tribunal’s assessment of whether the respondent has met the statutory prerequisites.[1]  In written submissions, which address applicable principles, it states:

it is open to accept that the material does prima facie suggest the existence of the requisite detrimental effect in the form of endangering the Respondent’s physical or mental safety.[2]

  1. [4]
    The underlying proceeding is a disciplinary referral brought by the Board containing nine allegations.  Two of them allege inadequate treatment of a patient (Patient A) across two days in August 2019, another of them alleges inadequate treatment of a different patient (Patient B) on a subsequent day in August 2019.  Three of the allegations allege the making of inadequate or misleading health records relating to the care provided to Patient A and Patient B for the events the subject of the first three allegations.  Two allegations of inappropriate delay in care are alleged, one involving each of Patient A and Patient B.  The final allegation is of a failure to undertake professional obligations generally, which relates to an alleged failure to conduct a mandatory daily vehicle inspection at the start of the shift on the day referable to the incident involving Patient B.
  2. [5]
    The referral was filed on 8 September 2023.  By his response filed 18 December 2023 the respondent denies all the allegations.

The legal principles which apply to the application

  1. [6]
    Section 66(1) of the QCAT Act confers power on the Tribunal to make an order prohibiting the publication, other than in the way and to the persons stated in the order, of:
  1. the contents of a document or other things produced to the tribunal;
  1. evidence given before the tribunal;
  1. information that may enable a person who has appeared before the tribunal or is affected by a proceeding to be identified.
  1. [7]
    Section 66(2) provides that the Tribunal may make an order under s 66(1) only if it considers it necessary to do so on a number of bases.  In this case the application is based on:
  1. to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person; or

…

  1. to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest.
  1. [8]
    It has been observed that this provision gives the Tribunal a broader power to constrain the operation of the open court principle than is available to courts generally by virtue of their inherent (or implied) jurisdiction.[3]  Having said that, the exercise of the discretion pursuant to s 66(1) is informed by the paramount principle of open justice.[4]  I note also s 31(3) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HR Act). 
  2. [9]
    The party seeking the non-publication order must satisfy the Tribunal it is necessary.[5]

Does the evidence satisfy the Tribunal that a non-publication order is necessary?

  1. [10]
    The respondent has filed expert evidence in support of the application. It is unchallenged.
  2. [11]
    Mr Craig Holt, a psychologist who has treated the respondent since 1 March 2010, has provided a report dated 7 November 2023.
  3. [12]
    His opinion is that the respondent’s presentation is consistent with a diagnostic formulation of post traumatic stress disorder (chronic and severe), major depressive disorder (chronic), anxiety/agoraphobia with panic and chronic, severe insomnia.  Mr Holt records the respondent is currently receiving psychiatric and psychological treatment, assistance from his general practitioner and is unable to work, due to severity of his symptoms, which are listed in the report.  He records that the respondent’s symptoms have been particularly severe for the last four years.  He sets out the impacts these symptoms have on the respondent’s daily functioning, current treatment and what he opines is the cause of his symptoms, which is repeated exposure to regular traumatic events whilst working as a paramedic for over twenty years.
  4. [13]
    Specifically, relating to this proceeding, Mr Holt states that he has grave concerns about the respondent’s mental health if the respondent’s name is made public.  He states the respondent will inevitably be placed at further significant risk of further serious harm, severe relapse and further decompensation if his name is published.  He states it is likely the respondent will suffer a significant risk of decline of his mental health, that any publication would significantly adversely impact current treatment and will cause significant harmful effects and further damage.
  5. [14]
    Dr Luke Hatzipetrou, a fellow of the Colleges of Forensic Psychology and Clinical Psychology has provided a report dated 6 June 2024.  He interviewed the respondent for four hours and fifteen minutes, over two appointments, gained information from the respondent’s wife and had reference to Mr Holt’s report.  The respondent’s personal circumstances set out in the report include that he lives with his wife, who is supportive of him, and their three school aged children.
  6. [15]
    Dr Hatzipetrou states that in the course of the interviews the respondent demonstrated cognitive, emotional and behavioural symptoms of a serious mental health disorder which has contributed to a marked reduction in his quality of life.  Without setting out the detail of the observations and matters recorded in the report, the Tribunal accepts that statement of opinion appears to be properly drawn from what is contained in the report.
  7. [16]
    Dr Hatzipetrou states the respondent presents with a disability and with clinical conditions that render him increasingly susceptible to self-harm behaviours.  He states the publication of the outcomes from this proceeding present to the respondent as a significant threat to his wellbeing and his family and that the respondent does not possess effective coping mechanisms despite access to a raft of mental health service providers.  Dr Hatzipetrou states that the revelation of the respondent’s identity and complaints made against him as a paramedic in the public domain is likely to have a significant and detrimental effect on his mental state, with an increased risk of psychological distress and dysregulated behaviours.
  8. [17]
    Relying on this evidence, the respondent submits that the order should be made because, in light of the respondent’s current severe mental health issues, the publication of his name would be catastrophic to his mental health and, it can be inferred, his family, were he to decompensate following publication.[6]
  9. [18]
    The evidence before the Tribunal supports the respondent’s submission that publication of his identify in connection with the proceeding, at this time, may well endanger his mental health or safety and, prospectively, may also endanger his physical health or safety.  The information about the respondent contained in the experts’ reports is also information which is typically regarded as confidential, in that it is about his past and current health circumstances and other very personal matters. In those respects, it also supports the making of an order pursuant to s 66(2)(d) of the QCAT Act.  Having reached this decision, no relevant considerations arise under the HR Act as no human right is, relevantly, limited by this decision.
  10. [19]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that it is necessary in these circumstances to make an interlocutory non-publication order as sought by the respondent.

Orders

  1. Until further order, pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), 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 the respondent or any family member of the respondent, 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 and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to provide information to the Office of the Health Ombudsman in the exercise of its statutory functions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).

  1. 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 this proceeding or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings.

Footnotes

[1]  Board’s submissions in respect of respondent’s application for non-publication order dated 21 June 2024 (Board’s submissions), [2]–[3].

[2]  Board’s submissions, [18].

[3] LSC v XBV [2018] QCAT 332, [26] (Judicial Member the Hon P Lyons KC).

[4]  See Health Ombudsman v Shemer (No 2) [2019] QCAT 54, [6] (Allen KC DCJ) and the authorities cited therein.

[5] Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89, [8]–[9].

[6]  Respondent’s submissions in support of non-publication order dated 6 June 2024 (Respondent’s submissions), [3].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Paramedicine Board of Australia v BML

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Paramedicine Board of Australia v BML

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 427

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Judge Dann

  • Date:

    17 Jul 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCATA 89
Cite 2 - [2010] QCATA 89
Health Ombudsman v Shemer (No 2) [2019] QCAT 54
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 54
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 54
LSC v XBV [2018] QCAT 332
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 332
Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 332

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.