In Health Ombudsman v Le-Feuvre [2025] QCAT 483, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) suspended a paramedic’s registration for two months following her conviction for various drug offences. At [2]-[5] the Tribunal said:

The offences involved the respondent, while employed as a paramedic, possessing at her house various dangerous drugs and medicines.  Cocaine and MDMA were found, but in respect of those drugs, the respondent was sentenced on the basis of occupier’s liability.  That is, they were not directly her drugs, but were the property of somebody with whom she shared a house.  Police found a vial of adrenaline on the kitchen table and in her bedroom, a needle and steroids, and a clip seal bag of MDMA.  Her telephone records contained records of communications with others concerning her use of steroids.  The parties have filed a joint statement of agreed and disputed facts, and there are no facts in issue.  The real issue in this matter is whether the appropriate sanction imposed by the Tribunal should impose a period of suspension.

In respect of the offences discussed, for eight of the nine, the respondent was sentenced to perform 150 hours of unpaid community service, and no convictions were recorded.  In respect of the remaining offence, the respondent was convicted and not further punished… 

… The respondent has no criminal history.  It has never been suggested she was drug dependent or had a drug addiction.  In any event, she has had three negative drug screens which indicates she has ceased the use of such substances.

The allegation was that she was using the drugs to enhance her performance in bodybuilding (see [4], [5], [11] and [15]). 

The Health Ombudsman was advised of the charges on 9 October 2023. Conditions were imposed on her registration on 22 December 2023. These conditions were amended in August 2024 after the matters had been dealt with in the Magistrates court.  The matter was referred to QCAT on 29 November 2024 ie just one year after she was charged. As the Tribunal says (at [9]) ‘This matter has come on relatively quickly in comparison to many matters that come before the Tribunal’. 

With respect to whether the conduct amounted to professional misconduct, the Tribunal said (at [9]-[10]):

… It is important to note, and it is accepted by the applicant, that the conduct was not directly related to performance of her clinical duties, but that of course, does not stop it being characterised as unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct.  The definition of professional misconduct stands alone, including unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience, or it can be a combination of a number of matters of unprofessional conduct.

I do not think there is any contest that the conduct amounts to professional misconduct, and I would be surprised if there was such an argument because the relevant code of conduct would expect that people in the respondent’s situation be law abiding, and this is particularly important to uphold the public confidence in the profession.  And as I say, I do not think this matter’s been argued.  It is still a matter for the Tribunal’s independent evaluation, and the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that either individually or as a combination of matters, the conduct amounts to professional misconduct.

When deciding the appropriate response, the Tribunal said (at [11]-[15]):

It is also very well-recognised that proceedings in this Tribunal are not about punishment.  They are about the public safety and about the public’s regard for the profession and the people who act in the profession.  The applicant submits here that the conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgement.  That is particularly corroborated by the fact of the telephone conversations recorded, and the respondent submits that her unlawful possession of the bodybuilding drugs was ultimately a deliberate choice made in pursuit of her own interests and in direct contravention of the standard she is expected to maintain…

… the main consideration is the health and safety of the public and the appropriate sanction is considered now, not at the time of the conduct.  There has been some discussion, both in written material and during oral argument, about insight and remorse shown by the respondent.  The respondent cooperated in the criminal proceedings, albeit in the case of strong evidence because drugs were found at the premises.  She has also cooperated in these proceedings, which is noted.  The need for specific deterrence here is not made out very clearly, and she has had clear drug testing, but general deterrence remains the most significant feature in my mind…

It is not necessary for the Tribunal to come to a clear declarative position in respect of her insight or remorse, except to say that the Tribunal accepts that there is insight and remorse.  What is of more concern is securing the maintenance of professional standards.  There is some mention of some stressful personal circumstances, but that has not been very clearly made out, and the Tribunal has considered that it is more likely that her possession of the bodybuilding drugs was in pursuit of that profession or that interest.  It is accepted that her registration has been restricted now in some form or another for almost 16 months, but as I say, that is not unusual in these hearings.  The Tribunal considers that the sanction it imposes should act as a clear denunciation of the conduct for the maintenance of professional standards and preservation of public confidence in the paramedic profession.

The Tribunal found that Ms Le-Feuvre’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct.  She was reprimanded and her registration suspended for two months.  The conditions on registration imposed by the Health Ombudsman were set aside. 

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.