In Paramedicine Board of Australia v Wylie [2024] QCAT 423 the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) made orders to reprimand a former paramedic and prohibit him from applying for registration for at least 9 months.

The case arose after the paramedic failed a random drug test whilst working at a Queensland coal mine on 9 July 2020. The test was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine but there was no evidence that he was impaired ([9]).   On 2 September 2020, the Paramedicine Board (‘the Board’) imposed conditions on the paramedic’s registration requiring him to undertake random drug screening, consult a treating practitioner and to undergo a health assessment ([10]).  On 19 October 2020 the Board suspended his registration for failing to comply with the conditions imposed on 2 September.  The paramedic was made aware of his suspension and confirmed he was aware of it in a email to AHPRA on 20 October 2020 ([12]).  The paramedic had commenced a new, casual, job on 6 October. Even though his registration was suspended he continued to work shifts as a paramedic until 30 November ([11] and [13]).

On 17 October 2022 he entered a plea of guilty to a charge of holding himself out to be registered under the Health Practitioner National Law.  He was fined $5000 plus costs in excess of $2300 ([15]).

The first complaint ([7]) before QCAT was that:

… between 20 October and 30 November 2020, the …  respondent practiced as a paramedic and/or knowingly or recklessly claimed to be a registered health practitioner or held himself out to be a registered health practitioner under the National Law in circumstances where the Board suspended his registration on 19 October 2020.

The second allegation ([8]) was that:

… between 8 October and 7 November 2020, the … respondent provided the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) and/or the Board with false information.

The second allegation related to information provided about his employment.  On 12 and 19 October Ahpra requested details of his practice information and he did not respond. Between 8 October and 7 November 2020 he wrote to Ahpra saying that he was not employed when this was incorrect. The failure to provide the practice information was a breach of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law s 132 ([17]).

Before QCAT it was agreed that his conduct represented professional misconduct. The Tribunal said (at [23]):

The respondent’s actions …  are plainly conduct substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. His conduct, too, in its dishonesty and deliberateness, is inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration. The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent’s conduct contained in the agreed facts, in respect of each of allegations one and two, constitutes professional misconduct as defined by s 5 of the National Law.

The Tribunal was particularly concerned about Mr Wylie’s dishonest answers to the Boad. They said (at [28]):

The Tribunal observed in Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin …  that, in that case, the practitioner’s dishonest responses to Ahpra in the course of the investigation were, in some respects, a more serious reflection on the practitioner’s character than the underlying conduct…

The Tribunal, in that earlier decision said:

The importance of deterrence of practitioners from any form of deceit in their dealings with their Professional Board deserves emphasis. The Board has limited resources and needs to be able to trust the responses of is practitioners who have a duty to deal with their professional association in good faith. Practitioners must know that serious consequences will follow if they flout that duty …

In this case the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that ‘… the respondent has developed any significant insight into the perils of his conduct’ ([30]), there had been no explanation offered for any of his conduct ([31]) nor any evidence that he had ‘undertaken education or engaged any other action that might assist the Tribunal to consider he has reflected on his earlier actions and understands that his conduct fell far short of that of a responsible professional person’ ([32]).

The parties agreed that a reprimand was an appropriate sanction. The Tribunal said (at [40]):

The authorities recognise a reprimand is a serious matter for a professional person and is not a trivial penalty.  A reprimand marks, from the perspective of general deterrence in particular, the clear inappropriateness of such conduct to the profession and the broader community.  It is appropriate in this case.

Because he was no longer registered QCAT could not cancel his registration but they did make a further order disqualifying him from applying for registration for 9 months. They said (at [42]):

An order for a disqualification period from the date of these reasons will, as the Board submits, send a clear message that holding out conduct, deliberately providing Ahpra with false information and engaging in overall dishonest conduct is a serious departure from the standards expected of health practitioners and does not align with the National Law and the suitability requirements to hold registration. …

Conclusion

This decision is an important reminder to all paramedics to take their obligations to Ahpra and the Board seriously. In this particular case one might infer it could all have been avoided if he had complied with the conditions first imposed.

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.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.