That was the outcome in Paramedicine Board of Australia v Naudi [2026] VCAT 877 (though the term ‘car park rage’ is mine and is not used in the judgment).

What happened

Mr Naudi, a decorated paramedic, was taking his family to Melbourne Zoo on 20 April 2024.  A minor accident occurred in the car park.  Mr Naudi went to take photos of the accident, the driver of the other car thought he was taking photos of her children and ‘attempted to grab [his] … phone from his hand’.  Mr Naudi punched her three times and she fell to the ground. Her mother ‘approached Mr Naudi with her hands raised. Mr Naudi punched the Second Victim once, causing her to fall to the ground’ ([4]). This second victim suffered a fractured humerus ([6]) and ‘a traumatic subdural hemorrhage, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and significant brain swelling; brain hemorrhage, concussion, and periodontal contusion’ ([29])

Mr Naudi was charged with numerous offences but ended up pleading guilty to ‘aggravated assault of the First Victim; and, recklessly causing injury to the Second Victim’ ([7]). On 3 October 2024, without conviction, he was placed on a 12 month community corrections order [(7]) with a requirement for 150 hours of community work which, by the time this matter came before VCAT, had been completed ([35]). In sentencing, the Magistrate ‘stated that his behaviour in the Melbourne Zoo car park was a ‘one-off isolated incident in the context of [his] otherwise excellent and previous good character’.’ ([7]).

The Board referred the matter to VCAT alleging that Mr Naudi’s conduct constituted ‘professional misconduct’ that is his ‘conduct was of a significantly lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of him by the public or by his professional peers, and is inconsistent with the Shared Code of Conduct…’ ([39(e)]).

The outcome

VCAT noted that Mr Naudi had been frank in his dealings with police, the court and VCAT. Although he had initially raised issues of self-defence, ‘[u]ltimately the respondent accepted criminal responsibility for his conduct …’ ([45]-[46]). He had completed a course in anger management ([47]) and completed the required community service ([35]). He lost his job with Ambulance Victoria. According to a treating psychologist he ‘has been diagnosed with a mental health condition as a result of trauma experienced while working as a paramedic. The letter concludes with an opinion being stated by the psychologist that Mr Naudi does not have any work or training capacity, and is totally and permanently impaired’ ([55]).

The Board wanted orders that Mr Naudi be reprimanded and his registration cancelled for two years. Mr Naudi accepted that a reprimand was in order but argued that his registration should be suspended, not cancelled, for a lesser but not specified period ([60]-[61]).

The Tribunal said (at [81]-[89]):

A reprimand for a health practitioner is an official censure that is serious and … ought not to be considered a ‘slap on the wrist’.

The conduct that we have found proven in this case includes violent assaults against women. That conduct is condemned by VCAT.

The respondent is reprimanded under s 196(2)(a) of the National Law.

Cancellation

Despite there being no allegation that involved any issue with patient care, we consider that the seriousness of Mr Naudi’s violence and the injuries sustained by the Second Victim are such that it is necessary and appropriate by way of general deterrence to cancel Mr Naudi’s registration as a health practitioner.

The respondent’s registration as a paramedic is cancelled under s 196(4)(e) of the National Law.

Restriction on reinstatement

It is not known at this time if the applicant will decide to request that he be registered as a health practitioner at some time in the future.

For the purpose of general deterrence, and also to maintain professional standards and protection of the reputation of the paramedicine profession, we have determined that Mr Naudi ought to be restricted from applying to be registered again until after he has had a period of time away from providing health services.

In the event that Mr Naudi forms a view that he does wish to return to work as a registered health practitioner in the future, it will be necessary for him to apply to VCAT or a responsible Tribunal in another state to do so.

The respondent may not apply to a responsible Tribunal reinstatement order for a period of twelve (12) months under s 196(4)(aa) of the National Law.

The matter was further adjourned to hear submissions as to costs.

Discussion

Paramedics and all health professionals are held to a high standard of personal conduct because the nature of their work brings them into contact with vulnerable people and depends on the highest level of trust. That means that even conduct away from work can reflect on their suitability to practice the profession.

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.