In Health Ombudsman v Hastings [2026] QCAT 139 (16 April 2026) the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal cautioned a paramedic over his delayed responses to several code 1 calls in 2023.  The facts are set out in [4]-[7]:

In relation to allegation 1, there are three separate causes of conduct which are included, and generally speaking they relate to a delay in the respondent’s response to code 1 incidents. The first one related to a delay of 10 minutes on 15 July 2023 and the delay was caused by him detouring to pick up something at his home. Code 1 incidents are potentially life-threatening events.

In relation to the second allegation, this occurred on 17 May 2023. He was at the time located at a McDonald’s when he received the dispatch call and he waited for coffee and food for a period of between three and five minutes due to waiting to receive those things. This incident in itself, but for the other incidents of delay in responding, may only have warranted a finding of unsatisfactory professional performance, but the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied it should not be so characterised in light of the other delays.

The third delay occurred on 31 May 2023. On that occasion there was a delay of approximately 15 minutes between the time of dispatch and the time of departure and during that delay the respondent purchased coffee. All the other allegations relate to allegations that there was a delay in notifying the Queensland Ambulance Service Operations Centre (‘OpCen’) of movements post completion of a relevant callout.

The times of those delays are various: in the first case, on 8 May 2023 it was 29 minutes; in the second case on 30 May 2023 it was allegedly 34 minutes, though that may be disputed. During the 30 May 2023 incident there was a 10-minute delay in notifying OpCen of movements post-completion of the relevant callout job; the next one was 20 minutes, and the one on 22 June 2023 was about 18 minutes.

Since these events, Mr Hastings has been subject to disciplinary proceedings by Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) including some mandatory training but he has returned to duty without further issues and with an otherwise exemplary record ([13]).  Further, at [12]:

The Tribunal is of the view that there is sufficient evidence to come to the finding that the delays in allegation one occurred where the respondent was either about to indulge in a long shift, where he was suffering from a considerable degree of stress, where he was suffering health problems that were causing him difficulty, and he was facing a heavy workload. There is an admission by the Board that on many occasions he had missed meal breaks or had to work beyond his shift, and that he had showed considerable insight into what was occurring.

In the circumstances the tribunal determined that given the practitioner’s insight, the fact that these events had occurred some time ago and have there has been no further issue then specific deterrence, ie a sanction designed to deter him from future similar conduct, was not required.  The appropriate response was to issue a caution. There was no order as to costs so each party would meet their own legal costs.

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.