A Queensland paramedic has had his registration suspended after groping a colleague’s ‘breasts with both hands, for approximately five seconds’ (Health Ombudsman v Garrahy [2026] QCAT 58, [15]).  The assault took place during a social function ‘organised by a QAS social club’ ([13]) on 15 July 2023. The victim complained to QAS who suspended Mr Garrahy’s employment on 10 October 2023. He was charged by police in February 2024 and, as required by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law he self-reported to AHPRA that he had been charged. He entered a plea of guilty to sexual assault on 29 June 2024: ‘he was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court and received a six-month good behaviour bond.  The Respondent was also ordered to pay $1,000 compensation within 28 days.  No conviction was recorded’ ([6]).  His employment with QAS was terminated on 19 March 2025.  On 27 March 2025 he was reported to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for disciplinary action under the Health Practitioner Regulation National law. 

Mr Garrahy agreed with the Health Ombudsman that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct in that it was either:

… 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 

… conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner’s profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

Or both ([24]-[25] and Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) s 5(a) and (c) definition of ‘professional misconduct’).   The Tribunal said (at [27]):

The Tribunal accepts that the conduct of the Respondent is conduct that can be characterised as professional misconduct, namely that the conduct is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and the conduct of the Respondent is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.  The Respondent’s breach of professional boundaries at a social workplace function undermines workplace safety and public confidence in the profession.

In deciding an appropriate penalty the Tribunal said ([33]-[36]):

A reprimand is not a trivial penalty, and it represents a ‘serious form of censure and condemnation.’

It is accepted by the tribunal that the respondent has demonstrated remorse as to his conduct.  He has, subsequent to the conduct, completed further training.  Additionally, the respondent plead guilty to the criminal proceedings and has not contested the current disciplinary proceeding.  The material provided by way of references at his sentence show the Respondent has expressed remorse for his conduct. 

It is also noted that although no action was taken by the OHO, the Respondent was suspended with normal remuneration on 10 October 2023, and on 19 March 2025 was terminated from his employment.  As such, although the Respondent was not formally suspended by OHO, the termination by QAS has resulted in a suspension from practice for a period of 17 months. 

General deterrence is always an important aspect of disciplinary proceedings.  In the current matter it is accepted that it is important to denounce the Respondent’s conduct and demonstrate to other health practitioners that acts of sexual assault are unacceptable, and that such behaviours may lead to significant sanctions.

The Tribunal accepted the recommendation from the Ombudsman, and agreed to by the respondent and made the following orders ([39):

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’) the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act the Respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the Respondent’s registration is suspended for a period of three (3) months.

4. There be no order as to costs.

Discussion

This case did not involve Mr Garrahy’s clinical skills or patient care. But he was a senior officer in QAS and the victim was one of his colleagues.  His conduct was, in his own words ([19]) ‘not forgivable’.  Such behaviour, at a work or no doubt any social occasion, reflects on a practitioner’s fitness to practice.  Practitioners need to remember that their conduct can always reflect on the question of whether they are a fit and proper person to be trusted in a health profession.  

A comment on terminology

In this case Mr Garrahy was charged with ‘sexual assault’.   That term means different things in different jurisdictions. In Queensland a sexual assault is committed when a person ‘unlawfully and indecently assaults another person’ (Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 352(1)(a)).   In New South Wales that type of offending would be called ‘sexual touching’ (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61KC). In this case, given Mr Garrahy was a supervisor in the region in which the victim worked and given it was at a social function with other people present, had it occurred in NSW he could have been charged with aggravated sexual touching (s 61KD).

In NSW the term ‘sexual assault’ replaces the old common law crime of rape.  Rape was a very gendered crime, only men could commit it, only women could be victims of it as it required penile penetration of a woman’s vagina.  The modern offence is gender neutral, anyone can commit it, but it still requires ‘penetration’ of the victim with some part of the perpetrator’s body or some object manipulated by them or non-consensual oral sex (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61HA).  This offence, in Queensland would still be called rape (Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 349) although the definition has been updated to again make it possible for a person of any gender to commit and a person of any gender to be a victim and to expand the definition of what constitutes unlawful ‘penetration’.

The lesson is that if you hear of a person being charged with an offence it is important to consider what jurisdiction they are in, because the same language may mean different things.  A person charged with sexual assault in NSW is facing a different allegation to a person charged with sexual assault in Queensland. 

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.