Health Care Complaints Commission v Nkanyezi [2025] NSWCATOD 140 involved a NSW paramedic who failed to disclose to AHPRA and the Paramedicine Board that had been convicted in the UK of the offence of sexual assault.

Mr Nkanyezi had trained as a paramedic in Queensland in 2014. He began working for the London Ambulance Service in 2016 and worked there until his resignation on 31 July 2019.  In January/February 2019 he applied for work with NSW Ambulance and applied for registration in Australia.  On 6 May 2019 (that is after his application for registration in NSW) Mr Nkanyezi was charged with the sexual assault of one of his LAS paramedic colleagues.  The sexual assault occurred on 4 May 2019.

Mr Nkanyezi returned to Australia and commenced work with NSW Ambulance on 5 August 2019.  At that point he had been charged with the offence, but the matter had not been resolved.  On 7 December 2021 he took leave from NSW Ambulance to return to London and to face his trial.  On 10 December 2021 he was convicted and ‘sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (to be served as a 24-month suspended sentence)’.  We are not told what the terms of the suspended sentence were but he was able to return to Australia where he continued to work for NSW Ambulance. He applied to renew his registration in 2022 and 2023.  At no time did he disclose his UK conviction.  AHPRA were ‘tipped off’ and after an investigation suspended his Australian registration.  The matter was referred to NCAT as a complaint of professional misconduct.

The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) requires a paramedic to advise the Board, within seven days, of being charged with on offence that carries a potential penalty of 12 months imprisonment (s 130(3)(a)(ii)) and if they are convicted of any offence that carries any potential term of imprisonment (s 130(3)(b)(ii)).  Mr Nkanyezi should have reported when he was charged, and again when he was convicted. He failed to do so. 

The complaints before NCAT were:

  1. That he was convicted of criminal offence (s 144(a));
  2. That the failure to notify the board that he had been charged, and then convicted, was a breach of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and therefore unprofessional conduct (s 139B(1)(b));
  3. That when he completed his renewal applications he answered ‘no’ to the question ‘‘Since your last declaration to Ahpra, has there been any change to your criminal history in one or more countries other than Australia that you have not declared to Ahpra?’ and this constituted a breach of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and therefore unprofessional conduct (s 139B(1)(b)); and
  4. When taking together the conduct amounted to professional misconduct.

The complaints were upheld. In deciding the penalty, NCAT said (at [179]-[181]:

We are mindful of the decision made by the Conduct and Competence Committee of the HCPC (UK) on 18 December 2023 which resulted in the practitioner being struck off the UK Register. The Committee Panel was satisfied that a striking off order was appropriate and proportionate because the nature and gravity of the concerns were such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain public confidence in the regulatory process. The Panel considered that to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders’ database was incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public.

In the case before us, there is no evidence of remorse or remediation or insight, from which we conclude there remains an ongoing risk to the practitioner’s female colleagues, patients and the public. Any sanction other than cancellation of his registration would be insufficient to protect those persons and would be insufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession.

We are of the view that the practitioner’s improper and unethical conduct is so incompatible with what is an acceptable standard of behaviour for a registered paramedic, that cancellation of the practitioner’s registration is warranted under s 149C(1)(b) of the National Law.

On whether he is a fit and proper person to be registered as a paramedic, NCAT said (at [208]-[210]):

…  we have concerns about the character traits exposed in the practitioner, particularly with respect to his attempts to hide his conviction. We have found that the practitioner’s conduct breached the National Law and breached the fundamental values of integrity and honesty under the PBA Code of Conduct. The practitioner’s repeated failures to honestly disclose his conviction demonstrate that he has traits that are inconsistent with the practise of paramedicine.

We place a substantial amount of weight on the nature and circumstances of the offence when considering whether the practitioner is unfit in the public interest to practice paramedicine.

Having regard to the evidence before us, and our consideration of Ahpra’s ten factors relevant to registration standards, we find that the conviction and the circumstances of the offence render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practise paramedicine, justifying as an additional ground, cancellation of his registration.

The following orders were made (at [230]):

  1. The practitioner’s registration as a health practitioner is cancelled for a period of 12 months…
  2. …  the practitioner is prohibited from providing health services …for a period of 12 months.
  3. … the practitioner is to pay the Commission’s costs …

Mr Nkanyezi had not been practising since his suspension in December 2023 and he did not take part in the disciplinary proceedings.  It follows that there is no promise or ability to resume practice in 12 months.  He will need to apply for registration, meet all the registration standards and the Board will again consider whether he has demonstrated that in that time he has become a fit and proper person. 

Conclusion

This is a particularly egregious case. First there was the grievous conduct in sexually assaulting a colleague. According to the UK sentencing judge ‘she had suffered an exacerbation in her pre-conditions in the immediate aftermath of the assault, and had sought counselling for her feelings of lack of self-worth and feelings of self-harm, with suicidal ideation. The assault had caused a significant upheaval in her life and she had given up her employment with the LAS’ ([188]).  This was compounded by Mr Nkanyezi’s dishonesty.  At [161]-[162] NCAT said:

He had professional and ethical obligations to complete documents relating to his renewal accurately. He failed to fulfil these obligations by making deliberately false statements to Ahpra, knowing they were untrue. The conduct was dishonest and deceptive, and in breach of the professional behaviour and conduct expected of paramedics to embody integrity and honesty. The practitioner’s conduct was thus, plainly, “unethical”.

These deliberate falsehoods constitute a standard of conduct that falls well below the conduct expected of a paramedic to be honest and ethical, and to have integrity. The practitioner’s conduct has the potential to bring the profession into disrepute and reduce public confidence in the profession.

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.