In Paramedicine Board of Australia v Pickard-Clark [2023] VCAT 1204 the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal suspended Pickard-Clark’s registration for 12 months and ordered that he undergo further education in relation to ‘honesty, integrity and the importance of working within the limits of scope of practice’.  The education could be in the form of one-on-one tutoring with a person approved by the Board, or completion of formal education course approved by the Board.

The facts

Mr Pickard-Clark has extensive experience in the pre-hospital emergency care industry dating back to 1975.  Paramedics were first registered in December 2018 but he was not registered until December 2019. His registration was subject to a condition of 1700 hours of supervised practice ([7]-[9]).  Since May 2018 he had been conducting a business as a private event health services provider.

In February 2021 he submitted a bid to secure a contract to provide health services at a school cadet camp. At [14]:

In order to better his chances of obtaining that contract, on 24 February 2021 he sent the ‘doctored’ registration certificate to the school. This falsely stated that there were ‘Nil’ conditions on his registration. He said he obtained this from another person, who had the ability to produce such forgeries.

The school became aware of the discrepancy and reported the matter to AHPRA.  Mr Pickard-Clark was interviewed and made full admissions ([16]).  The matter was referred to VCAT and it took until October 2023, 2 years and 9 months after the event, to be finalised.

The Tribunal said (at [20]-[22]):

It was agreed that by engaging in the conduct described, Mr Pickard-Clark failed to comply with:

a. Clauses 1.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 8 of the Paramedicine Board of Australia Code of Conduct (‘Code’); and

b. S 120 of the National Law.

Those provisions of the Code relevantly require that paramedics be ethical and trustworthy, honest, and display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community.

Section 120(1) of the National Law provides that a health practitioner who is registered on conditions must not knowingly or recklessly claim, or hold themselves out, to be registered without such conditions. Section 120(2) provides, in effect, that a breach of that obligation may constitute a basis for disciplinary proceedings against the practitioner.

The tribunal was satisfied (at [24]-[26]):

… that the conduct comprises professional misconduct within the meaning of (c) and (a) of the definition of that term in the National Law’.

That is, regarding (c), it was conduct inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession. Honesty is a bedrock requirement for any registered professional. Members of the community should be able to accept without question the word of a registered health practitioner, particularly in relation to such a fundamental matter as whether their registration is subject to conditions or not. The proper functioning of the profession, and of the regulatory controls put in place for the protection of the public, rely on this. The dishonesty displayed by Mr Pickard-Clark on 28 February 2021 was clearly inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to practise. (As noted below, however, that does not necessarily entail that he must be disqualified at the conclusion of this disciplinary proceeding, two and a half years later.

We also find, as agreed, that the falsification of the registration certificate amounted to unprofessional conduct which is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. This is underscored by the fact that the conduct breached the above provisions of the Code, and s 120 of the National Law. Hence, we find, it amounted to professional misconduct within the definition of that term under (a) in s 5 of the National Law.

In determining the appropriate penalty the Tribunal took into account Mr Pickard-Clark’s immediate admissions, his contrition and his recognition of the stupidity of his actions ([28]). They were (at [31]) ‘… also conscious that this relatively simple case has taken to two and a half years since notification to reach final determination’.  At [33] and [39] they said:

Clearly, a reprimand should be imposed. This reflects the community’s denunciation of Mr Pickard-Clark’s conduct. It will appear on his official registration record, which is publicly available…

The falsification by Mr Pickard-Clark of his registration certificate was blatantly dishonest, and as such, needs to attract a sanction which sends the appropriate message of deterrence to other practitioners. But bearing in mind the practical implications of the conduct, as described above, the delay and his clear remorse, a period of 12 months out of practice is sufficient to send that message.

The order for education was made to ‘reinforce the basis for his ethical obligations’ and in the hope that it would ‘have the benefit of mitigating to some degree against the impact of any professional isolation which may exist’ during the period of suspension ([41]).

Conclusion

Paramedicine has for years been listed as one of Australia’s most trusted professions. Admitting paramedicine to the list of registered health professionals was a recognition of that trust.  As the Tribunal said (at [25]) ‘Members of the community should be able to accept without question the word of a registered health practitioner …’. The orders made here were intended to reinforce that obligation and to help protect the community’s trust in the profession.

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.