In Paramedicine Board of Australia v Jackson [2025] SACAT 103, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal had to rule on complaints, lodged by the Paramedicine Board, alleging that Mr Jackson ‘had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct’.   It was alleged that he ‘was recklessly indifferent in his answer about his criminal history and was deliberately deceitful in relation to his answer about workplace conduct’.  The Tribunal upheld some part of the complaint and dismissed others.

Delay

One cannot begin reporting on this case without first noting the issue of delay.  The alleged conduct was said to arise when Mr Jackson sought to renew his registration as a paramedic on 27 December … 2019!  It took the best part of five years to sort this out when, as we’ll see, the facts were not complicated nor in dispute.

On another delay I note that the hearing in this matter took place on 1 October 2025 and the decision is dated 28 October 2025. I have an automatic search on the database ‘Jade’ that delivers relevant cases to my inbox every morning.  I cannot explain why this case only appeared this morning (6 March 2026) and not in October 2025.

What happened

Mr Jackson first applied for registration as a paramedic on 26 November 2018 that is when the paramedic registration system first commenced, presumably he’d been working as a paramedic for the South Australian Ambulance Service before that.  The Tribunal explains (at [6]-[9]):

Mr Jackson was suspended from his employment with SA Ambulance (SAAS) on 30 January 2019 pending the outcome of an investigation into an allegation made about his conduct in the workplace on 6 and 7 January 2019. That decision was confirmed on 31 January 2019.

On 6 May 2019, Mr Jackson was charged with four counts of Indecent Assault under s 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and one count of compelled sexual manipulation under s 48A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 in relation to alleged incidents on 6 and 7 January 2019. These charges were not pursued and were withdrawn a relatively short time thereafter.

On 22 May 2019, Mr Jackson was granted registration by the Board as a paramedic under s 82(1)(a) of the National Law.

On 27 December 2019, Mr Jackson completed an application for the renewal of his registration with the Board online.

When applying to renew his registration, Mr Jackson had to answer these two questions:

1. Since your last declaration to AHPRA has there been any change to your criminal history in Australia that you have not declared to AHPRA?

and

10. During your preceding period of registration, has your right to practise at a hospital or another facility at which health services are provided been withdrawn or restricted because of your conduct, professional performance or health?

In response to both questions, he answered ‘no’.   

Criminal history

The reference to ‘criminal history’ ‘included “every charge made against a person for an offence”’ ([14]).  Between the time of his initial application for registration and his application for renewal he had been charged with an offence, but a decision had also been made to withdraw those charges and no further action was taken.  Further, at [13] we’re told:

The Board already knew about the criminal charges that had been laid against Mr Jackson at the time that he completed the Renewal Declaration and had known since at least September 2019. The Board had corresponded with Mr Jackson about its decision to conduct an investigation into associated matters by letter dated 4 December 2019.

Mr Jackson’s argument was that although charges were brought, they were ‘dropped soon after. He therefore did not believe that this amounted to any change in his criminal history. It did not change the substance of his police clearance’ ([17]).  He admitted that he had not read the guidance material on criminal history so believed he had answered the question correctly ([18]).   Although the board originally alleged that Mr Jackson’s answer was deliberately dishonest, during the hearing they dropped that allegation but continued to assert that he had been ‘recklessly indifferent to whether the information given to the Board was true’ ([23]).

The Tribunal agreed with the Board’s submissions.  They said (at [52]-[54], emphasis added):

In the context of this case, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Jackson that at the time that he completed the Renewal Declaration, he assumed and believed that the reference to ‘criminal history’ in question 1 was directed to criminal convictions. To that extent, he was not deliberately deceitful in his answer to question 1 and the Board properly withdrew that allegation.

However, for those registered or applying to be registered under the National Law, the legislature has created a clear intention that the Board must have regard to criminal history. In this context, ‘criminal history’ is defined in s 5 of the National Law to mean:

(a)     every conviction of the person for an offence, in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, and whether before or after the commencement of this law;

(b)     every plea of guilty or finding of guilt by a court of the person for an offence, in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, and whether before or after the commencement of this law and whether or not a conviction is recorded for the offence;

(c)      every charge made against the person for an offence, in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, and whether before or after the commencement of this law. (emphasis added).

The Tribunal accepts the submission of the Board that the disclosure and assessment of a registered health practitioner’s ‘criminal history’, as defined, is fundamental to the effective regulation of health professions under the National Law.

And at [61]-[62]:

Mr Jackson was recklessly indifferent to whether his answer to question 1 of the Renewal Declaration was correct. He did not avail himself of the readily available electronic help notes, which would have made it clear to him before finalising his answer that the question was not just directed to criminal convictions, but also to “every charge made against the person for an offence”.

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that Mr Jackson’s response to question 1 of the Renewal Declaration is most appropriately categorised as “professional conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of a health practitioner”, this being unprofessional conduct. In the absence of deliberate deceit, it does not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

Workplace history

Mr Jackson’s argument here was ([19]):

He was not stood down from his employment due to his conduct. He was stood down while an investigation was undertaken by his employer into an allegation that had been made against him. This was the circumstance that he was in at the time that he completed question 10 of the Renewal Declaration. He therefore did not feel that it was accurate to answer question 10 in the affirmative, as this could be interpreted as a concession to ‘conduct’ for which he was maintaining a firm denial.

In this case the Tribunal agreed with Mr Jackson. They said (at [64]-[66]):

The question is specifically worded, and it is directed to ‘conduct’, as opposed to ‘alleged conduct’, or ‘an investigation into alleged conduct’. If the Board intended that the question include disclosure of a restricted right to practise due to an investigation into alleged conduct, the wording of the question should have made this clear.

In circumstances where Mr Jackson had faced criminal charges and had at all material times maintained a denial of the subject workplace ‘conduct’, answering question 10 in the affirmative could have been misinterpreted as a concession by him that there was ‘conduct’ and that this was the reason for him being restricted. When Mr Jackson completed the Renewal Declaration, there had been no finding by his employer with respect to ‘conduct’ – Mr Jackson had been stood down while his employer undertook an investigation into alleged conduct.

It would be unfair to Mr Jackson if the Tribunal applied a strict interpretation of the wording in question 1 of the Renewal Declaration and then on the other hand, apply a liberal interpretation to the wording of question 10.

This allegation was dismissed.

Outcome

The Tribunal was then left to determine the appropriate outcome giving the finding of ‘unprofessional conduct’ with respect to the answer to question 1.  The Tribunal recorded (at [21]) that Mr Jackson ‘had resigned as a paramedic and was working in a different industry. He had no desire to resume working as a paramedic’.  We are not told when he had resigned or whether he’d practiced between 2019 and his ultimate resignation.  

The Tribunal ordered that Mr Jackson was ‘reprimanded’.  Tribunals have said that this is not a trivial outcome – see for example Paramedicine Board of Australia v Reis [2022] QCAT 120, reported in my post QLD paramedic reprimanded for failure to maintain professional boundaries (May 27, 2022) where the QCAT said (at [63]):

… Relevantly to the need to deter others who might be minded to behave in a similar way, and to ensure the maintenance of public confidence in paramedicine health care providers, a reprimand is a serious form of censure and condemnation.

It may not have felt that serious to Mr Jackson who is no longer working as a paramedic, but it is meant to convey to other practitioners the need not to engage in similar behaviour lest they be put through a 5 year disciplinary process.

A more significant implication for Mr Jackson was the order that he pay ‘50% of the reasonable legal costs of the Board, such sum to either agreed or fixed by the Tribunal.

Discussion

With respect to question 1 it’s hard to see why the Board did not think a mere chat and a bit of advice to Mr Jackson – given they knew of the complaints – telling him that the answer should have been ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’ was not sufficient.

With respect to question 10 this case is important as it gives some clarity for others and confirms that being suspended whilst an investigation into allegations takes place is not the same as being suspended on the basis of established conduct. That may be important for others who will have to answer the same question on future registration renewals or it may lead to AHPRA and the Boards to change the question. Either way what is required is relevantly clarified.

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.