In Paramedicine Board of Australia v Callen [2025] QCAT 460, the Queensland Tribunal reprimanded a (now former) Queensland paramedic for allowing unlawful access to the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) computer systems.  Once again the delays in this case must cause concern.

The alleged conduct occurred between 28 May 2019 and 9 October 2020 ([7]).  Mr Callen had resigned from QAS in July 2023 and his registration was surrendered on 1 August 2023 ([3]). The matter was first referred to the Tribunal on 12 December 2023 ([6]).  There is no explanation for the delay in proceedings though there were questions of jurisdiction.

Mr Callen was first registered as a paramedic 28 May 2019.  Some of the alleged conduct occurred prior to his registration. On 22 November 2023 the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with matters arising prior to registration (see Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear complaints about a former paramedic’s conduct prior to registration (December 31, 2023)). This was confirmed by the South Australian Supreme Court on 20 March 2025 (see Relevant Tribunal cannot rule on matters prior to a paramedic’s registration (March 31, 2025)).

The question of whether QCAT had jurisdiction to deal with pre-registration conduct was raised and it may have been that the Tribunal waited to see the outcome of the South Australian litigation.  That may be part of the reason for the delay, but it is not made explicit in the judgement.  The Tribunal does say that it is dealing with an ‘amended referral’ that is a referral that is different to the one filed in December 2023.  The Tribunal says (at [4]):

The amended referral came about as a result of the Board raising in its original submission the possibility that, because the conduct in allegations three to six allegedly occurred prior to the respondent becoming registered with the Board, the Tribunal may lack jurisdiction to determine those four allegations.  The legal issue arises, it is said, in light of a decision of the South Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in March 2025 – Paramedicine Board of Australia v Jackson; Physiotherapy Board of Australia v Smith [2025] SASCA (20 March 2025).

Trying to make sense of that chronology it appears that the Board, in December 2023 (‘in its original submission’) raised the jurisdictional issue.  But it is said, the legal issue arose from the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia in 2025.  A submission made in 2023 could not address a legal issue that arose from a judgment in 2025 so either the Board recognised the issue in 2023, given the decision of SACAT in November 2023 or submissions were not made until after March 2025.  

The Tribunal said:

The Board has decided that, given the significant lapse of time between now and the alleged conduct the subject of allegations three to six, a pragmatic approach is in the interests of justice, which will finalise the matter, hence the amended referral.  Consequently, there is no longer any need for the Tribunal to resolve the jurisdictional issue.

That is the Tribunal did not direct the Board that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the matter.  Rather, on 30 July 2025, the Board withdrew the allegations relating to pre-registration conduct thereby avoiding the need for legal argument as to jurisdiction.  It may be that the Board accepted that there was no jurisdiction. Or they may have thought that the point was still arguable, but given the delay and Mr Callen is no longer registered, there was simply no point in running the argument.  We don’t know the Board’s reasoning, but the result was that the Tribunal had to deal with only two allegations out of an original six (see [4]-[5]).  The allegations are set out in [7]-[10]:

… Between 28 May 2019 and 9 October 2020, Mr Callen provided his QAS username and passwords to an associate, AA, who was not an authorised user, and who improperly accessed patient records on 93 occasions in that period.

AA was then Mr Callen’s partner.

… Allegation two alleges that Mr Callen engaged in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct in that he accessed the software and viewed incident reports on twenty occasions when he was not on shift and when there was no legitimate business reason for doing so.

Mr Callen took no part in the proceedings so there is no explanation as to why he, or his partner AA, were accessing this information.  The Tribunal said (at [14]-[18]):

The Tribunal accepts the Board’s submission that the proved conduct satisfies the definition of unprofessional conduct in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’). 

In relation to each ground, the misconduct breached applicable codes of conduct and QAS policy documents.  The respondent’s actions potentially undermine patient privacy, which is a principle embodied in the Board’s code of conduct for health practitioners. 

It is a fundamental ethical obligation of all health practitioners to treat any information about patients as confidential.  Mr Callen’s actions breached these obligations as he appears ultimately to reluctantly accept.

…

The evidence here is unclear as to what the respondent’s motives were in behaving as he did.  Nevertheless, it involved protracted and repeated misuse of sensitive QAS data system containing confidential patient information.  It is fitting that the Tribunal imposes a sanction apt to denounce that behaviour and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.  

A finding of unprofessional conduct was confirmed, and Mr Callan was issued with a reprimand. 

Discussion

It is not clear why the matter was referred to QCAT.  A performance and professional standards panel (established under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s 182) can deal with issue where it is alleged ‘the way a registered health practitioner practises the health profession is or may be unsatisfactory (and see the ‘Discussion’ in the post Paramedic disciplined for 1.5 minute delay in responding (November 8, 2025)).  It may have been that the original referral alleged the more serious offence of Professional Misconduct, but it was downgraded when the amended referral was made.  A big difference between a decision by a panel and a decision by a relevant tribunal (such as QCAT) is that Tribunal findings are public, published on websites such as Jade and Austlii, and open to comment by people like me. Panel decisions are not, although anonymised summaries are published on the AHPRA website at https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/Panel-decisions.aspx.

Publication is essential if decisions are to serve the purpose of deterrence. If other practitioners cannot see what conduct is punished and how, they cannot be deterred from engaging in the same or similar conduct.  It is not made explicit whether that is a consideration when decisions are made whether to refer a matter to a Tribunal or a Panel and there is no explanation in this case why this matter was before QCAT and not a relevant panel.

As a case for general deterrence however this matter is of little help. The case is so short of facts; there is no explanation of what records were accessed, no explanation of the practitioner’s motives and no analysis of the factors that suggested, despite allegedly allowing a third party to access to patient records 93 times, a reprimand was the appropriate outcome.

Like so many cases this one is unsatisfactory given the lengthy delay and the fact that often practitioners have left the profession and opt out of the process so that the Tribunal’s do not have to significantly engage in fact finding or judging competing submissions but instead appear to ‘rubber stamp’ the relevant Board’s submissions.

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.