The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) requires a registered health professional to notify their board within 7 days (s 130(1)) of being charged with a criminal offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more (s 130(3)(a)) or after being convicted of an offence punishable by any period of imprisonment (s 130(3)(b)).  For example, the offence of driving with a middle range prescribed concentration of alcohol (contrary to the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) s 110(4)) carries a maximum penalty of 9 months imprisonment.  A registered paramedic would not need to disclose that he or she had been charged with this offence; but would need to notify the Paramedicine Board within 7 days of being convicted of the offence.  A second offence carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment so a paramedic who is facing a second allegation within 5 years of the first would have to report it to the board as soon as they were charged, and again after the court proceedings if they are convicted.

In Health Care Complaints Commission v Richards [2024] NSWCATOD 37 the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal determined to disqualify a paramedic who (at [98]):

…  failed to notify AHPRA when he was found guilty of driving in 2020 with mid-range prescribed concentration of alcohol, who was charged and convicted of again driving in 2022 with mid-range prescribed concentration of alcohol (and failed to promptly notify AHPRA of that charge and conviction) and who was charged and convicted of driving an ambulance whilst suspended the following week (and failed to promptly notify AHPRA of that charge and conviction). The practitioner also failed to immediately notify his employer when his licence was suspended and he was charged with driving offences and transported patients on two days while his licence was suspended.

The Health Care Complaints Commission argued that driving patients whilst suspended was itself sufficient to warrant a finding that the practitioner should be suspended.  The Commission argued (at [104]) (and quoting from the practitioner’s police interview) that ‘a paramedic who had been registered since 2019 … must have known that it was wrong to work his shifts while his licence was suspended but apparently decided to work rather than call in sick (telling police that he did not want to “’burn’ too much sick leave”, or “’blow off’ four shifts”.’  The Tribunal agreed saying that this conduct, ie failing to notify the employer of the charge and licence suspension and driving ambulances on 4 shifts whilst suspended, ‘goes to the very heart of the role of a paramedic, and in our view constitutes professional misconduct’.  The Commission argued for a suspension of 1 to 2 years. The Tribunal said (at [110]-[115]):

In our view, a period of disqualification at the higher end of the period sought by the Commission is warranted. This is for the following reasons.

First, the practitioner has not helped himself by failing to attend the s 150 hearing [regarding immediate suspension] and the Tribunal hearing. This has the result that, while he says that he has “taken full responsibility for [his] actions” there has been no opportunity to test whether he has in fact accepted responsibility for his actions.

Secondly, there has been no opportunity for the Tribunal to assess the practitioner’s stated remorse or to understand what if any insight he may have developed.

Thirdly, while the practitioner claims that it was “never his intention” to deceive AHPRA, he must have known that information about drink driving would be useful for AHPRA because he had already (correctly) mentioned his 2014 conviction when he submitted his original application for paramedicine registration in 2018 and he had already (albeit late) mentioned his 2020 criminal finding in his 2020 annual renewal.

Fourthly, it appears that it appears that the practitioner took a number of steps to conceal his 3 July 2022 charge and licence suspension.

Fifthly, a disqualification period of two years will make clear to the practitioner, the profession and the public the seriousness with which the Tribunal views repeated drink driving by a paramedic who then drives an ambulance transporting patients while his licence is suspended.

The Tribunal ordered that it be recorded that if the practitioner was still registered, they would have cancelled his registration. He was disqualified from applying for registration as a paramedic for 2 years.  It is not known whether similar action will be taken by the Nurses Council.

Discussion

The first issue is the seriousness of this conduct and how practitioners have to be prepared to deal with issues as they arise. In his police interview the practitioner, when asked why he drove, said:

“… I was just trying to pick up the pieces and go right and formulate a plan as to, … how am I going to possibly go about this…. Got to call a lawyer, got to do this. I wanted to just ride it out until it got to court and see what happened. Obviously it has gone incredibly south…. Why did I drive? I didn’t want to burn too much sick leave, you know, blow off four shifts. …I understood the legality of it, didn’t want to let the team down”

It can be tempting to ignore things in the hope one can formulate a plan but for practitioners in a position of trust that is never acceptable.  As the Commission said in their submission (at [104]) ‘the objectives of the national scheme include providing for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered’.   Failing to immediately face up to the consequence of one’s actions is inconsistent with that position.  

The second issue is my role in reporting this case. The practitioner in letters written to the Courts and to the Tribunal and in his interview with police made it clear the toll this event has had on him personally.   At [4] ‘The repercussions have been immense and overwhelming.’  At [26] ‘I am embarrassed and ashamed to have brought the health profession into disrepute’ and:

This investigation processes run by the Paramedic and Nursing Councils and HCCC and other internal bodies have taken a huge toll on my life. I have suffered the humiliation of newspaper articles the character assassinations at the hands of authorities resulting in the publication of my name and my address further adding to the psychological stresses.

I do not wish to add to anyone’s humiliation, but decisions such as these are public documents.  Whether I write on it or not, the information is freely available to anyone who wants to look. Further, the way the system is supposed to work is orders by the Tribunal, like criminal punishments, are meant to have a deterrent effect. As the Tribunal said (at [106] ‘deterring others from engaging in similar conduct is a necessary part of maintaining the standards of the profession and thereby ensuring public safety and faith in the profession’.  The outcome has no deterrent effect if it is not communicated to those who need to understand the standards expected of them, i.e other paramedics.   

I don’t write on cases that reveal personal circumstances simply for the entertainment of myself or my readers.  I would, however, do a disservice to the professions (paramedicine and law), and the blog would be of much less value, if I did not report cases such as this.

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.