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. 

POSTSCRIPT

After making this post, I received the following further questions:

Do you have any thoughts/concerns on the OHO not taking any action against this officer?

As you are aware, the OHO have the power to take Immediate Action in relation to these matters and it would appear that at no point was any action considered by them.

This includes at the time of the notification, at the time of the officer disclosing criminal charges, and at the time of the sentencing hearing when they plead guilty to the charges.

It seems like a big failing of the OHO here as they did not fulfil their duty to protect the public etc.

It is also noted that the officer was suspended on remuneration, however given no action was taken against their registration, could have easily sought employment as a paramedic in another organisation/state etc.

Is this not a failing of the OHO to not put anything in place to mitigate this risk associated with this officer practising the profession in the meantime?

It is also interesting that the Tribunal refer to references provided at the sentencing hearing. Especially when Qld Legislation has changed recently and character statements are no longer able to be provided in sexual assault cases. 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, as I think OHO missed an opportunity and have been much stricter on officers charged with far less serious offences.

In this blog I try to report on the law and its application.  I try to avoid editorialising and speculation (but I concede I don’t always succeed and sometimes I just cannot resist).   But I’m loathe to speculate on why the OHO did or did not take action.  To answer that question one would need to be privy to the information they had and their thought processes.  What I can do is look at some of the law.

Health Ombudsman

Queensland (like NSW) is a co-regulatory state so there are systems in place to regulate health professionals that work alongside the relevant boards and AHPRA. In NSW there is the Health Care Complaints Commission and councils for each profession, in Queensland the Health Ombudsman.  

We are told (Health Ombudsman v Garrahy [2026] QCAT 58, [3]) that ‘On 31 October 2023, a notification was received by the Office of the Health Ombudsman (‘OHO’) from QAS’.  We are further told that ‘An investigation was subsequently commenced by the OHO, but no action was ultimately taken against the Respondent’ ([4]). 

The Health Practitioner National Law deals with notifications by health practitioners and others. In Queensland a notification under the National Law is made to the Health Ombudsman (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s 146) and dealt with as if it is a complaint under the Health Ombudsman Act (s 36).   What follows is that the notification on 31 October was in effect a complaint. 

Upon receiving a complaint the Health Ombudsman must, within 7 days, decide (s 35):

(i) to accept the complaint and take particular relevant action to deal with the matter of the complaint; or

(ii) to accept the complaint and take no further action in relation to it; or

(iii) not to accept the complaint;

We are told that there was an investigation so we can infer that the Ombudsman made a decision under s 35(1)(a)(i) where ‘relevant action’ includes ‘investigating the subject matter of the complaint’ (s 38).  After an investigation the Ombudsman may decide ‘to take no further action in relation to the matter’ (s 90(a)(ii)).  

We simply do not know why in this case the health ombudsman decided to take no further action.  

Even if the Ombudsman decided to take no action after an initial investigation, they could have taken action once Mr Garrahy was arrested.  The Ombudsman may take ‘immediate action’ (Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 58) if he or she:

(a) … 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.

The Act gives an 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.

What is a ‘serious criminal offence’ is not defined. In the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld) s 17, ‘an indictable offence for which the maximum penalty is at least 5 years imprisonment’ is considered a serious criminal offence. In the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 20B a serious criminal offence is, inter alia, an ‘an indictable offence punishable by at least 7 years imprisonment’.  Sexual assault carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.  On anyone’s definition that would be a ‘serious criminal offence’. 

It follows that the Health Ombudsman could have taken immediate action, but did not.  Again, we cannot know why they did not.  

Whether the action, or more accurately inaction, of the Ombudsman means ‘they did not fulfil their duty to protect the public’ depends on their reasoning and whether they did address when making a decision, whether there was a risk to the public. They may have thought that because this complaint was not about patient care and he had been suspended from QAS there was no ongoing risk to the public; but again, we cannot know their thinking. 

As for mitigating the risk if the respondent sought work outside the QAS again we cannot know the reasoning, perhaps for whatever reason they were satisfied the he would not do so or perhaps it’s correct and they failed to properly mitigate a risk.  One would think that if he had given an undertaking not to practice it would have been mentioned in the QCAT judgment.  

These are all legitimate questions, but it would be no more than speculation to suggest what may or may not have cause the Ombudsman to act, or not act, as they did.

References and the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9 sets out guidelines to be applied by courts when sentencing offenders.  Subsection 9(2)(f) says:

In sentencing an offender, a court must have regard to—

(f) the offender’s character, antecedents, age and intellectual capacity;

There are however limits on the use of character evidence when sentencing an offender ‘for an offence of a sexual nature’ (s 9(3A)).  Section 9(3B) says:

The court may treat the offender’s good character as a mitigating factor only if the good character is relevant to the court’s consideration of—

(a) the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation; or

(b) the risk of the offender reoffending.

That is, evidence of good character cannot be used to determine or mitigate their criminality in the conduct, but it may inform the court about the likelihood of future offending.  My correspondent says ‘Qld Legislation has changed recently and character statements are no longer able to be provided in sexual assault cases’ but as we can see that is not strictly true. Character references are admissible but only for the limited purpose of assessing the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation and/or future offending. 

The law limiting the use of character references was included in the Penalties and Sentences (Sexual Offences) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (Qld) and took effect on 1 November 2025 (s 2(2)). Mr Garrahy’s sentencing was on 30 September 2024 that is before those changes took effect.  In any event we are told ([34]) that ‘The material provided by way of references at his sentence show the Respondent has expressed remorse for his conduct’ which does go to the issue of future offending and potential rehabilitation so presumably would have been admissible for that limited purpose even if he was sentenced after 1 November 2025.

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.