When writing my report on NSW RFS firefighter imprisoned for multiple child sexual offences (July 1, 2023) I said that ‘The point of reporting is to distil some lessons for emergency workers or the emergency services not merely to report for its own sake particularly where the particular facts are egregious and may be triggering.’

Health Care Complaints Commission v Thistlethwaite [2023] NSWCATOD 95 is another disturbing case that again needs to be reported. As The Civil and Administrative Tribunal says (at [113]):

The public is entitled to know whether a practitioner has been the subject of disciplinary findings and orders. Other members of the profession have an interest in knowing whether a colleague has been disciplined, and why. Decisions also provide a marker of what is unacceptable to other members of the profession.

The issue before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal was the status of Mr Thistlewaite’s registration. The Health Care Complaints Commission made two complaints. The first was that the practitioner had been committed of a criminal offence (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law s 144). The second was that he had been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct Health Practitioner Regulation National Law s 139B(1)(1) when he engaged in ‘inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature towards his colleague’ ([22]).

Complaint 1

Mr Thistlethwaite

… was employed by Safety Australia Group as a paramedic supplied to NSW Trains for the provision of paramedic services at NSW railway stations’…

Commencing in July 2019, a number of young women came forward and made allegations of inappropriate touching by Mr Thistlethwaite that they stated occurred when they were examined by him following episodes of feeling unwell while travelling on a train or at a railway station.

His last victim, patient H, was a nurse who identified that Mr Thistlewaite’s examination of her was not clinically indicated. She immediately reported the matter to her mother and then ‘to the first police officer she came across when arriving at Central Railway Station from Redfern’ [60]).

Mr Thistlewaite was subsequently convicted of 16 offences against 8 women.  When sentencing the offender, King DCJ said ([60]):

… The offender sexually touched each of the victims under the guise of legitimate medical treatment. His offending was sophisticated, well disguised and calculated…

The offending escalated over time. He commenced with touching of the breast area for the first victims. Then moving to the touching of the mons pubis area for [Patient D] and [Patient F]. It then culminated with his hands inside the underwear of [Patient G] and the full exposing of the genital area of [Patient H]. He lowered the pants of [Patient F] and [Patient H] without warning…

For several victims the offender rang their private telephone number, or sent unsolicited and unnecessary messages, sometimes of a sexual nature…

The offending can reasonably be described as both serial and predatory sexual offending. …”

He was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of two years ([9]). 

The issue for the Tribunal (at [59]) was whether ‘the circumstances of the offences for which Mr Thistlethwaite has been convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practise his profession.’  Not surprisingly the Tribunal found that Mr Thistlewaite was unfit to remain a paramedic. The Tribunal said ([80]-[85]):

… public interest contemplates both the direct risk to patients and the indirect risk to the public through damage to their trust in the profession. When health professionals are convicted of serious criminal offences and that criminal conduct occurs whilst performing their professional role and responsibilities, the public’s ability to entrust their care to those health professionals is eroded if the practitioner continues to practise.

The serious nature of the offences and the length of time over which they occurred, may cause most reasonable members of the public to fear placing themselves, or their loved ones, in the care of a convicted practitioner lacking rehabilitation and insight…

Mr Thistlethwaite’s offences were serious, warranting sentences of imprisonment. The offences were not isolated and committed over the course of six months with victims ages ranging from 17-27 years. It was serial and predatory sexual conduct.

Several factors emerge from the circumstances of the offences which demonstrate that Mr Thistlethwaite is unfit in the public interest to practise. They are as follows:

1. The conduct of physical examinations or treatment on eight women in small, isolated rooms at train stations without a genuine medical or clinical purpose for the examination or treatment.
2. The nature and extent of the inappropriate sexual touching which escalated over time becoming more brazen, commencing by touching breast areas to touching mon pubis for Patients D and F, to hands inside the underwear of Patient G, and fully exposing Patient H’s genitals.
3. The absence of any informed patient consent.
4. The conduct was a departure from paramedic education, training, and practice in that there were unnecessary repeated examinations of the breast, abdomen or pubic area after time intervals, the unnecessary removal or interference with the clothing of the patient, and Mr Thistlethwaite being seated whilst the victims were standing, leaving victims feeling uncomfortable.
5. The ability to commit the offences because of his position as a paramedic.
6. The offences were difficult to detect because the victims were vulnerable and had no medical training except for Patient H who made a complaint to the police, which brought an end to the offending.
7. Mr Thistlethwaite’s attitude towards the offending and his ongoing reluctance to admit the offences demonstrates a lack of responsibility and no remorse. His only admission is that he may have acted unprofessionally asking “a few girls out for coffee” but that was “only ever done after treatment and with good intent”.
8. Mr Thistlethwaite showed no remorse for his criminal conduct or contrition for the impact upon the victims of his crimes. His expressions of regret were focused on what he saw as his loss. Mr Thistlethwaite’s total lack of insight and absence of remorse demonstrates that his prospects of remediation are poor.

Mr Thistlethwaite’s conduct adversely impacted his profession, and his conduct is incompatible with the personal qualities essential for the practice of paramedicine. It brings the profession into disrepute.

Given the matters referred to above, we are satisfied that the circumstances of the offences of which Mr Thistlethwaite has been convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practise paramedicine.

Although not referred to in this case, I am also reminded of the decision in HCCC v Litchfield [1997] NSWCA 264 (cited in Health Care Complaints Commission v McAlpine [2022] NSWCATOD 92 and discussed in the post Paramedic suspended for sexual misconduct directed to a patient (August 22, 2022)). In Litchfield Gleeson CJ, Meagher and Handley JJA said:

Female patients entrust themselves to doctors [and paramedics], male and female, for medical examinations and treatment which may require intimate physical contact which they would not otherwise accept from the doctor [or paramedic]. The standards of the profession oblige doctors [and paramedics] to use the opportunities afforded them for such contact for proper therapeutic purposes and not otherwise. This is the standard that the public in general and female patients in particular expect from their doctors [and paramedics], and which right thinking members of the profession observe, and expect their colleagues to observe.

Mr Thistlewaite took advantage of his position as a paramedic, and the trust that people place in paramedics to abuse those who had come to him for care. As King DCJ said (at [60]):

The offender used medical terminology to establish superiority and authority over the victims and boasted of his professional status to gain their trust, giving him increased opportunity to commit the offences. Each of the victims was feeling unwell and therefore vulnerable. The offender exploited their vulnerability to sexually touch them in circumstances where they were unable to protect themselves and powerless to challenge his treatment. Those who did question the treatment such as [Patient E] and [Patient F], were rebuffed with medical jargon and bogus medical explanations for the touching of their bodies.

Complaint 2

Mr Thistlewaites’ colleague, A, commenced work with Safety Australia Group on 26 March 2019 and left on 29 April after working only two shifts, both with Mr Thistlewaite.

The allegations were:

On 27 March 2019, Mr Thistlethwaite engaged in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature towards his colleague, Person A, in that he:

1. said words to the effect of “I like the way they look” when referring to Person A’s black jeans;
2. said words to the effect of “it will be dangerous to work with you because you are cute”;
3. showed a photo of his tattoo to Person A which covered his back and buttocks;
4. said words to the effect of “FYI the contracts don’t state that we can’t have relationships with colleagues and seeing that we’re both single we can message and see what happens”; and
5. called Person A at approximately 10:15am and said words to the effect of “now you have my number too” before sending two text messages on WhatsApp to Person A.

On 28 March 2019, Mr Thistlethwaite engaged in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature towards his colleague, Person A, in that he:

1. at approximately 9:45am said words to the effect of “that’s a shame, I was going to ask you to have lunch with me”;
2. said words to the effect of “you can nap at my place” and “I promise I won’t watch you when you’re asleep” and “oh, you want me to watch you”; and
3. sent a text message on WhatsApp to Person A which stated, “Now I could make some crude joke about you having the afternoon off because your pussy needs some attention … but I won’t do that.”

Mr Thistlewaite’s conduct was said to be contrary to ‘clauses 1.2 and 4.2 of the Paramedicine Board of Australia ‘Code of Conduct for Paramedics’ effective June 2018.’  Those clauses dealt with ‘1.2 Professional values and qualities’ and ‘4.2 Respect for colleagues and other practitioners’.

At [37] the Tribunal said:

We have no difficulty in finding Mr Thistlethwaite’s conduct towards Person A to be both unethical and improper. It was persistent, unwelcome, inappropriately personal, and sexually suggestive. It commenced within the first hour on the first day of Person A starting her job as a paramedic. It did not reflect the standards expected of paramedics under the Code. In our view, for Person A to be confronted by something so unwelcome and disempowering at work was an improper violation of the professional respect and courtesy she was entitled to expect from a colleague.

Outcome

The Tribunal ordered that Mr Thistlewaite’s registration as a paramedic was cancelled for a period of not less than 5 years.  That does not mean he will be reinstated in 5 years; it means he can reapply in that time. If he does reapply he will have to show the Board that by virtue of his post-offence behaviour and training he is no longer a risk to the public.

Mr Thistlweaite was ordered to pay the costs of the Health Care Complaints Commission.

He was also prohibited from providing any health care for 5 years.  The Tribunal said that if they would make the order to ensure ‘the protective purpose of the cancellation of Mr Thistlethwaite’s registration is not significantly undermined.’ They said (at [100])

We accept the submission of the Commission that Mr Thistlethwaite was able to be employed as a first responder/medic team leader with Safety Australia Group without being a registered paramedic. Without a prohibition order, there may be nothing stopping him from applying for jobs that do not require registration as a paramedic.

Finally, Mr Thistlewaite had sought an order prohibiting the publication of his name. This was warranted he said because of

… potential media scrutiny [and perhaps being reported on this blog] and the negative impact on himself and his family members. He claimed to have been affected by the events of the last few years and had been diagnosed with PTSD, severe depression, and anxiety. He said further media attention identifying him whilst in prison would be a danger to his personal safety. He maintained that he was not guilty of any crime. He claimed that his parents were undergoing therapy for PTSD related to the criminal proceedings and the publication of his details could have a further negative impact on them.

Australian justice is open justice. The starting point is that anyone can sit in court, and anyone can report matters heard in court. Courts can impose non-publication orders, but they are the exception, not the rule. The court declined to make the non-publication order (and see [113] quoted at the start of this post).

Conclusion

It appears that Mr Thistlwaite continues to deny any wrongdoing (see [68]-[69]) and his biggest concern appears to be the effect of the proceedings on him and his family, rather than any concern for the nine women involved ([70]-[71]).

Despite this he was convicted which means the court accepted – beyond reasonable doubt – that he had committed the offences alleged.  Given the circumstances of the offending the decision to cancel his registration was the only appropriate order the Tribunal could have made.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.