In what must have been an exercise in wishful thinking, a Queensland paramedic appealed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking to have his registration restored pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. 

GYK’s registration was suspended by the Health Ombudsman ‘after it received information from the Queensland Police Service on 30 January 2024 that the applicant had been charged with a number of offences of a sexual nature against children under 16 being lineal descendants of the applicant’ (GYK v Health Ombudsman [2025] QCAT 168, [5]). After committal proceedings, the accused was committed to stand trial in the Queensland District Court.  The indictment presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions alleges ([6]-[8]):

(a) two counts of repeated sexual conduct with a child;

(b) seven counts of rape;

(c) six counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 who was a lineal descendent;

(d) two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 who was a lineal descendent; and

(e) one count of sexual assault.

The applicant argued that the decision to suspend his registration pending the outcome of the proceedings should be set aside.  He argued (at [4]):

(a) There is no sustainable belief that the applicant is a serious risk in light of the exculpatory evidence which necessarily gives rise to a doubt about the veracity of the allegations.  That is particularly so when regard is had to the other inherent credibility and reliability concerns;

(b) Alternatively, a condition requiring the applicant to practice as a secondary paramedic for dispatches involving patients under 18 years of age would mitigate any risk;

(c) The public interest favours the setting aside of the order once all of the unique circumstances of the case are properly understood and imputed because those features would not undermine the public confidence.

The Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 58(1) says:

The health ombudsman may take immediate registration action under this division in relation to a registered health practitioner if—

(a) the health ombudsman reasonably believes that—

(i) because of the practitioner’s health, conduct or performance, the practitioner poses a serious risk to persons; and

(ii) it is necessary to take the action to protect public health or safety; or…

(d) the health ombudsman reasonably believes the action is otherwise in the public interest.

Example of when action may be taken in the public interest—

A registered health practitioner is charged with a serious criminal offence, unrelated to the practitioner’s practice, for which immediate registration action is required to be taken to maintain public confidence in the provision of services by health practitioners.

The applicant argued that a review of the evidence given at committal would mean that the Ombudsman could not entertain the reasonable belief required by s 58(1)(a)(i). It is not the role of the Ombudsman, however, to determine whether the accused is guilty of the offence or what the outcome at trial is likely to be. The issue for the Ombudsman is whether there are grounds to believe there is a serious risk to persons and/or whether action is otherwise required in the public interest.

The Tribunal cited the decision in WD v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 614 which held that

1. an immediate action order does not entail a detailed enquiry;

2. it requires action on an urgent basis because of the need to protect public health and safety;

3. the taking of immediate action does not require proof of the conduct; but rather whether there is a reasonable belief that the registrant poses a serious risk;

4. an immediate action order might be based on material that would not conventionally be considered as strictly evidentiary in nature, for example, complaints and allegations;

5. the mere fact and seriousness of the charges, supported by the untested statements of witnesses, in a particular case, might well be sufficient to create the necessary reasonable belief as to the existence of risk;

6. the material available should be carefully scrutinised in order to determine the weight to be attached to it;

7. a complaint that is trivial or misconceived on its face will clearly not be given weight;

8. the nature of the allegations will be highly relevant to the issue of whether the order is justified.

The Tribunal said (at [29]-[30]):

In the Tribunal’s view, the fact that there are some evidentiary issues does not detract from the extremely serious nature of the alleged offending and the Tribunal is satisfied that no condition can be imposed that would ameliorate the risk.  …

The Tribunal is also satisfied that the public interest test is met in this case. The HO Act contemplates, by way of note to s 58(1)(d) (i.e., the public interest provision), that immediate action can be taken when a practitioner is charged with a serious criminal offence in order to maintain public confidence in the provision of health services.

I would think it axiomatic that there would be a threat to public confidence if a person facing the number, and sort of, charges that GYK is facing were allowed to continue to work as a paramedic pending the outcome of the matters.  A recent story on the harm being done to children in child-care also reveals the impact on public confidence if people who are acquitted, or where charges do not proceed, remain in the sector (see Kate Lyons, Sarah Martin and Henry Belot, ‘Thousands of reports of abuse have been made in Australian childcare centres. Most alleged perpetrators were allowed to keep working’ The Guardian (28 July 2025).  In a case where the evidence had been assessed by police, the Magistrate and the DPP and all found that there was sufficient evidence to put the accused on his trial, then there has to be a concern about public confidence, and the risk to children, if the accused were allowed to continue to work.

As for his suggestion that the risk could be ameliorated by requiring him to work as a second paramedic when responding to children, the Health Ombudsman argued (at [23]) that

… by nature of his role as a paramedic, the applicant may have to urgently attend to victims of childhood sexual abuse or an adult survivor…  the suggestion that the applicant be a secondary paramedic is incompatible with the urgent and unpredictable nature of the work and would burden the emergency services with an extra layer of supervision.

The Tribunal concluded (at [26]) … ‘that having regard to the serious nature of the offending, that the immediate action taken by the respondent was appropriate’.  GYK’s immediate suspension was confirmed.

Conclusion

As I said at the start this case seems to me to have been the ultimate exercise in wishful thinking.  That any paramedic or health practitioner (or their lawyer) thinks he or she is going to be allowed to practice when facing some 18 very serious sexual offence allegations is at best extremely optimistic.  The community would, I think, be outraged to think that a person would be allowed to have the sort of exposure to vulnerable people that paramedics have whilst such allegations are pending. 

GYK is entitled to the presumption of innocence but that means only that at the criminal trial it is up to the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Health Ombudsman is not determining whether or not GYK is guilty, but where there are grounds to believe that there may be a risk to persons or the public interest including public confidence in the profession. The decision of the Ombudsman does not prejudice the right to a fair trial.

If GYK is convicted then one can expect further action that will, I would imagine, lead to a cancellation of his registration. If he is aquitted action may still be taken because questions of whether or not one is a fit and proper person to be a practitioner are decided on the civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ and not the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.  I make no comment on what is likely to happen if he is acquitted, only that the acquittal need not determine what is the outcome with respect to professional registration.

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.