In two unrelated matters, paramedics in NSW and Victoria have been prohibited from seeking further registration after both were convicted of offences relating to child abuse material and for failing to report, as required by the Health Practitioner National Law that they had been charged with those offences.

In Health Care Complaints Commission v Kemp [2024] NSWCATOD 190 (27 November 2024) the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) made orders cancelling Mr Kemp’s registration and banning him from working in health services for 5 years.  Mr Kemp did not attend the hearing or make submissions, but the Tribunal was satisfied that he had been notified of the hearing and had the opportunity to participate if he wanted to.  In the circumstances they proceeded to deal with the matter in his absence.

In August 2022, Mr Kemp was convicted of a number of offences including possessing child abuse material, disseminating child abuse material and two counts of intentionally distributing an intimate image without consent. He also asked the court to take into account an allegation of secretly recording intimate images involving a family member.  Mr Kemp was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be served by way of intensive corrections order.

It was alleged that his conviction for these offences along with his failure to report that he had been charged as required by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law meant that Mr Kemp was not a fit and proper person to maintain his registration as a paramedic.  The Tribunal said (at [22]):

It is sufficient for the Tribunal to find and the Tribunal does find that the Respondent’s conduct leading to his conviction of the offences of possession and dissemination of child abuse material are offences of considerable seriousness and contrary to accepted community standards.

At [27] the Tribunal said:

The nature of the offences involving the dissemination of child pornography and the clandestine behaviour to which the Respondent pleaded guilty require a significantly lengthy period of cancellation of the Respondent’s registration.

The next day, on the 28^th November, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) had to deal with a similar case in Paramedicine Board of Australia v TNS (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 1133.  In this case VCAT found that the paramedic’s conduct in accessing, possessing and controlling child abuse materials was professional misconduct and his failure to report that he had been charged was unprofessional conduct. In this case the respondent (who was not identified in order to protect the anonymity of how own family) did take part in proceedings. There was an agreed statement of facts and agreement by the parties as to the appropriate outcome. The Tribunal reprimanded the practitioner and ordered that he is prohibited from seeking registration as a paramedic or working in health services for six years.

At [27] the Tribunal said:

The material before the Tribunal shows TNS’s conduct in accessing and possessing child abuse material was sustained and serious. The charged conduct involved using a peer-to-peer file sharing network to access files of child abuse material on six separate dates between 10 September 2020 and 15 November 2020. There was evidence of TNS accessing child pornography on 7 December 2012. In his interview with police, he said he had been searching for and accessing child pornography on and off in the last few years.

For accessing the material, TNS was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be served in the community subject to a three-year good behaviour bond  and ‘subject to the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner, Community Correctional Services and Sex Offender Management for a period of two years’. For maintaining possession of the material he was sentenced to a two-year community corrections order including 300 hours of community service. He was also required to complete ‘the Sex Offender Treatment Program conducted by Central Melbourne Psychology’ and his name is entered on the sex offenders register ([30]).

At [38] the Tribunal said:

… the parties agreed, TNS’s conduct constitutes ‘professional misconduct’, being substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience…

Although TNS was no longer a registered paramedic the Tribunal said (at [46]-[48]):

… disqualification for applying for reregistration is appropriate, as the parties agree, in the interests of general deterrence and to uphold the reputation of the profession.

In our view, the proposed six-year disqualification from the date of these orders is appropriate, given the disgraceful conduct involved.

We agree with submissions from both parties that it is appropriate to set this time limit in line with the period for reporting relating to the Sex Offenders Register.

Conclusion

Conduct away from a health practitioner’s practice can still have professional implications. There was no suggestion that the conduct in these cases was directed to or involved patient’s or colleagues but serious criminal behaviour such as accessing child-pornography goes to the issue of whether a person is a fit and proper person to be a health care professional and whether the profession would be harmed if people guilty of that behaviour were to be allowed to remain in the profession.

In both cases it was agreed that the criminal conduct involved was such that these people could not remain as members of the paramedic profession, nor could they be trusted to provide any health care services whether or not those services required registration.

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.