In Health Care Complaints Commission v GJU [2024] NSWCATOD 160 the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal made orders disqualifying a former paramedic from seeking further registration for at least 5 years.  The paramedic (who cannot be named both to protect them and their mental health and the victim of their offending) had been convicted of sexual touching, stealing and breach of an apprehended violence order.

The offender was appointed to assist the family of another paramedic who had died. In May 2022, whilst at work, he received a call from Person A, the daughter of the deceased paramedic. The outcome was that the paramedic left a trainee at the hospital and took the ambulance to collect Person A from a party as she was heavily intoxicated.  Whilst driving her home, the paramedic stopped the ambulance and got into the back with Person A who was ‘upset, crying and hyperventilating’ ([69]). Then (at [70]-[73]):

Person A had a mixture of saliva and mucus on her face and top. The practitioner said words to the effect of: “You’ve got stuff all over you”. He also allegedly noted that Person A’s top was covered in glitter.

[The practitioner] then used a ready wipe to wipe across Person A’s breasts. The Commission asserts that the practitioner did this as a pretext to touch her breasts in a sexual fashion, because there was no other reason to remove glitter from her top.

The practitioner wiped across the top of Person A’s breasts, under her collarbone and then her chest. He continued to wipe under her bra, touching her breasts, with the wipe in his hand. He also wiped material from her inner thigh…

He then wiped Person A’s forehead and said: “You have got something on your forehead” before kissing her on the lips.

Person A made immediate complaints to friends and was taken to hospital where further complaints were made to nursing staff and ultimately to police.

The next day, the paramedic, aware that his conduct was to be reported to police, attended the ambulance station and stole several ampules of scheduled drugs including morphine, fentanyl and ketamine [91] with the stated intention of ending his own life [95].  He was located by police and taken to hospital for mental health treatment and assessment ([100]).

Both the paramedic and NSW Ambulance made relevant notifications to AHPRA. The paramedic was suspended from work ([105]-[106]).  In June 2022 he was in court when an apprehended violence order was made directing him to stay away from and not contact Person A.    17 days later he telephoned Person A to apologise even though making this phone call was a breach of the Apprehended Violence Order.  The paramedic was again arrested and it appears spent three months in gaol ([167]). In February 2023 the matters came before the court and he entered pleas of guilty. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for the sexual touching and breach of the AVO. The sentence was to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order rather than full time custody ([113]). 

In May 2024 the Health Care Complaints Commission brought the matter before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) seeking protective orders on the basis that ‘the circumstances of the offences render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practice paramedicine’ ([115]).  The practitioner did not take part in the proceedings noting that they were no longer registered and would not seek further registration but asking the tribunal to continue orders that prohibited publication of their identity ([21]-[49]).  The Tribunal said (at [118]-[123] references omitted):

Whether the practitioner is unfit to practice must be assessed wholistically. The Tribunal must consider matters such as the practitioner’s motivation, insight, and attempts at remediation.

The Tribunal must consider the maintenance of standards of the profession, preservation of public confidence in the profession, and, more broadly, the protection of the community.

The objective of protecting the health and safety of the public is not confined to protecting the patients or potential patients of a particular practitioner from the continuing risk of his or her malpractice or incompetence. It includes protecting the public from similar misconduct or incompetence of other practitioners and upholding public confidence in the standards of the profession. That objective is achieved by maintaining standards and, where appropriate, cancelling the registration of practitioners who are not fit to practice.

Denouncing such contact also serves as a deterrent to the individual concerned and to the general body of practitioners and maintains public confidence by signalling that those whose conduct does not meet requisite standard will not be permitted to practice.

In assessing its gravity, the offending conduct is not to be measured by reference to the worst cases but by reference to the extent to which it departs from proper standards.

The adverse consequences for a practitioner may require that an order should be made which is no more restrictive than necessary for the proper protection of the community. However, it is unavoidable that protective orders may be incidentally punitive. Any assertion that the practitioner’s character has been reformed requires clear proof.

The Tribunal continued (at [150]-[154]):

The issue we must determine is whether the circumstances of the offences for which the practitioner was convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practice his profession.

We agree with the sentencing Magistrate. The practitioner knew that Person A was vulnerable. He was in a position of trust, which he egregiously betrayed.

We also find that the practitioner’s actions when he stole restricted medication and falsified the records, represents a very serious breach of his duty to the public as a paramedic.

Finally, the fact that the practitioner breached the APVO, only 17 days after it was issued, for whatever reason, is consistent with a lack of respect for the law and Person A.

For those reasons, we find that the circumstances of the offences for which the practitioner was convicted render him unfit in the public interest to practice his profession.

The Health Care Complaints Commission sought a four-year disqualification. That was not challenged by the paramedic and so that was the order that was made ([163].

Notwithstanding the paramedic’s financial dire straits caused by the loss of employment and the costs incurred in the legal proceedings (in particular the criminal proceedings as the paramedic did not appear at the NCAT hearing) the paramedic was ordered to pay the Commission’s costs.

Discussion

Originally there were two charges of assault and two charges of sexual touching but these were negotiated to the one count of sexual touching that the paramedic entered a plea of guilty to. There must have been some dispute about what happened, but at the end of the day the paramedic did admit to the offences.

Any sexual misconduct by paramedics can lead to a loss of registration. This case was particularly egregious as the admitted conduct occurred in an ambulance, whilst the paramedic was on duty and the victim was a child and a child of the paramedic’s deceased friend where the paramedic had been appointed to assist the family in the time of their grief.

This conduct has no doubt had devastating impacts for the vulnerable young woman involved and also for the paramedic and his family who have lost the paramedic’s standing in the community, their income and their expectation of the later years of their working life and retirement (see [167]).

As Pink Floyd sang (‘One Slip’):

A momentary lapse of reason
That binds a life for life …

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), 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.