Paramedicine Board of Australia v Sallery [2026] WASAT 88 reports on the short career of Mr Sallery.

On 27 January 2021 Mr Sallery was registered as a paramedic ([12]). On 4 May 2021 he began his first job as part of a team providing emergency medical services at a remote West Australian mine site. He was engaged to provide leave coverage for the regular paramedic ([13]).  There was a 3-day handover ([24]) and then he was left on his own.  On 13 May he concluded his final shift and took part in a handover ([31]).  At the handover it was noted that Mr Sallery had recorded that there was expired ‘morphine, fentanyl, diazepam, temazepam and midazolam’.  When asked to explain what had happened to these drugs, Mr Sallery said that he had put them in the bin rather than follow the procedure of securing the drugs until they could be returned to the nearest pharmacy for destruction ([32]-[33]).

A search of the bin found no expired drugs. A search of Mr Sallery and his luggage revealed syringes, a vial of sodium chloride, 4 ampules of morphine, 2 ampules each of diazepam and midazolam ([36]-[39]). Police attended and discovered a further ampule of midazolam ([41]).   Mr Sallery was charged with possession of a prohibited drug (morphine) and stealing the morphine. He entered a plea of guilty ([44]-[45]).  The Paramedicine Board suspended Mr Sallery’s registration on 1 June 2021, a little over 4 months after he was first registered.  Following the normal delays the matter was referred to the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal alleging professional misconduct. The referral was made on 29 August 2024 and this decision was delivered on 30 July 2026 and I note again that this is some 5 years after the event when the facts were not in significant dispute. 

There was however some dispute.  Although Mr Sallery took no part in these proceedings and indicated he would not seek to practice as a paramedic in the future, he had made submissions when the Board first considered suspending his registration. The tribunal did consider those submissions.  Mr Sallery alleged that at the handover he had not been given instructions as to how to dispose of expired drugs but that was rejected by the Tribunal ([102]).  Mr Sallery also argued that he had the diazepam and midazolam in his pockets for quick access ‘He said that he kept these medications on his person, and not in the drug bag, as he had seen other doctors and nurses employ that practice’ ([52]).  Again that was rejected by the Tribunal ([102]).

Mr Sallery admitted taking the morphine which he intended to supply to a heroin-addicted friend (who, by the time of this decision, was deceased) in order to assist them ‘in weaning off heroin’ ([42], [93] and [102]).  The issue for the tribunal was whether Mr Sallery’s conduct, both in taking the drugs and for failing to notify the board that he had been charged by police, amounted to ‘professional misconduct’.   The tribunal found that it did. They said (at [104]-[130]):

First, as was canvassed in the Board’s submissions, the theft of medication by a health practitioner is serious conduct that has often resulted in a finding of professional misconduct…

The Respondent’s conduct, in misappropriating the morphine and attempting to misappropriate the midazolam and diazepam, is very serious.  An inherent aspect of the role of a health professional, such as a paramedic, employed in the context of a regional (and remote) location, is to maintain, safeguard, administer and, where necessary, dispose of the medications that are required to be kept for the safety of all personnel.  In such contexts, it is therefore imperative that sch 4 and sch 8 medications be carefully and diligently managed by those charged with the authority and responsibility to do so.  

It is also relevant that the conduct occurred in connection with his duties as a paramedic.  In acting as he did, the Respondent breached the inherent trust placed in him and thus failed in what is a core duty of a paramedic.  It is unprofessional conduct that is, we find, substantially below that to be reasonably expected from a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience.  

Second, the theft of the morphine, a sch 8 medication under the Poisons Standard, for the purpose of supplying it to another, adds to the gravity of the Respondent’s conduct.  The very reason morphine is restricted under sch 8 of the Poisons Standard, is because it is a drug of addiction and there is a community need to reduce its abuse, misuse and associated physical or psychological dependence.  

We accept the Board’s submissions, the effect of which is to emphasise that morphine should only be administered under the strict supervision of a medical practitioner or other qualified health professional.  However, on his own evidence, the Respondent says he intended to supply the morphine to his friend for use which, as we have found, was inherently likely to occur other than under appropriate medical care and supervision.  

The failure to appreciate, even in Mr Sallery’s written submissions (made almost 2 years later), the inherent danger (posed to his friend) in his intended course of conduct, only compounds its seriousness. 

… the theft of habit‑forming drugs such as morphine, coupled here with the intention to supply it to a heroin-addicted friend for use other than under medical supervision, adds significantly to the gravity of the Respondent’s conduct.  Furthermore, it increases the extent of the deviation from the requisite standard reasonably expected from a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience.  

Accordingly, we are satisfied, and we find, Mr Sallery’s conduct, in intending to supply the stolen (and expired) morphine to a drug-addicted friend, for use other than under appropriate medical supervision, would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable, by paramedics of good repute and competency.  

Third, we are also troubled by other surrounding facts.  The Respondent’s employment at the Mine Site was his first as a paramedic, which endured for only 9 days.  ERS and the Mine Site provided him with his first opportunity to work in what he would later submit was his ‘dream career’…

By engaging in such serious conduct at the very outset of his career, it does, in our view, immediately raise for consideration the question as to whether the Respondent is, at least at this time, fit and proper to hold registration as a paramedic.  

Fourth, the Respondent was working in a regional location in Westonia, some distance away from emergency health services.  Furthermore, he was employed at the Mine Site, which, by its nature, involves dangerous work.  These facts only heighten the need for the careful management of the drugs at the Mine Site, particularly sch 8 medications…

Fifth, on the facts that we have found, the Medications had all expired.  In so finding, we have rejected Mr Sallery’s explanation that the midazolam and diazepam (totalling 4 ampules) found on his person (with a 5th ampule later located by police), were available for use at the Mine Site.  Because we are satisfied that the Medications had all expired, this is not a case where the Respondent appropriated or sought to appropriate, medication that could still have been safely dispensed, if required, at the Mine Site, to potentially jeopardise the safety of personnel.  It was instead medication that needed to be disposed in accordance with the Storage/Disposal Procedure.  

Sixth, Mr Sallery’s explanation, which we do not accept, that the midazolam and diazepam that were found on his person were intended to be used for legitimate purposes on patients, is also, of itself, concerning. 

As explained, Mr Sallery was required to comply with the Mine Site’s MMP, which includes detailed protocols for the storage of medications…

Accordingly, if Mr Sallery was storing medications, such as midazolam and diazepam, on his person, in the performance of his duties at the Mine Site, he would have been acting contrary to the requirements set out in the MMP.  Such conduct would, in our view, be regarded as unsatisfactory professional performance, as it would have evinced a level of judgment, and care, with respect to the storage of medications, that is below the standard reasonably expected of a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience.

Seventh, we acknowledge that, at the time of the conduct, the Respondent was a very inexperienced paramedic and, on the facts, appears that he was largely completing his shifts at the Mine Site working autonomously.  We also note that at, 22 years old, Mr Sallery was, and remains, a young man.

However, the Respondent was duly qualified through a university degree.  Mr Cartwright’s AHPRA statement included commentary to the effect that the disposal of medications is an inherent aspect of a university qualification in paramedicine. We accept, and agree with, Mr Cartwright’s broad observations in this regard.  

In any event, we have found that the Respondent had been provided with a three-day site orientation, and additional verbal instructions from Mr Chandler, on the Storage/Disposal Procedure.  Accordingly, we do not accept the Respondent’s submissions, nor his evidence in his AHPRA interview that, because, in his view, he had not been properly trained, this somehow mitigates his decision to retain the Medications.  As we have set out, we are satisfied that Mr Sallery was not simply ‘retaining’ the Medications on some mistaken belief that it was permissible to do so.  Rather, he was, attempting to, without detection, misappropriate the Medications from the Mine Site.  

Furthermore, this is not a situation where the fact that the Respondent was a young man, and a very inexperienced paramedic, may colour the appropriate characterisation of his conduct.  Misappropriating morphine, and attempting to misappropriate the midazolam and diazepam, which are each scheduled medications under the Poisons Standard, and that are required to be closely regulated and managed, both at the Mine Site and in the community, fundamentally offends one of the core duties of a paramedic, no matter what level of experience.  As the QCAT observed in Hopkins, such conduct is fundamentally dishonest and evinces a ‘serious lack of moral integrity’.  It is unprofessional conduct that is substantially below that to be reasonably expected from a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience.  

The breaches of the Code (sections 1.1, 1.2 and 8.1) reinforce the seriousness and gravity of Mr Sallery’s misconduct.  The failure to promptly inform the Board of the charges against him was contrary to s 130 of the National Law.  However, such failure is not at the same level of seriousness as his other impugned conduct.  It is, we find, ‘unprofessional conduct’ under the National Law.

Accordingly, having regard to the totality of the Mr Sallery’s conduct, our overall finding is that he engaged in ‘professional misconduct’ under the National Law, by reason that his conduct:

(a)          constitutes repeated instances of unprofessional conduct that is substantially below that to be reasonably expected of a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(b)          is inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession. 

That is not the end of the matter. The tribunal, having found that Mr Sallery’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct invited the parties to make submissions as to the appropriate sanctions to be applied and any order as to costs ([131]).  

Conclusion

 Mr Sallery’s registration has been suspended since 1 June 2021 (ie for more than 5 years), he has a total work experience of 9 days and he has indicted he will never again seek to work as a paramedic. Whatever the orders the Tribunal ultimately makes, it seems that Mr Sallery’s paramedic career is well and truly over before it started.  

One can feel some sympathy for the fact that he was ‘a young man, and a very inexperienced paramedic’ but it shouldn’t take much to realise that stealing scheduled drugs (expired or not) and supplying a heroin addict with morphine without appropriate medical supervision, is not acceptable conduct by any paramedic.  As the tribunal noted he should have understood that his conduct was unacceptable ‘no matter what level of experience’.  If he didn’t know that, or didn’t care, then it is appropriate to hold that he is not a fit and proper person to be registered as a paramedic. 

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.