The Board imposed conditions on Mr Fletcher's registration pursuant to s 178 of the National Law. These conditions required Mr Fletcher to undertake education and submit to an audit of his practice. Mr Fletcher disputes these conditions and has not complied with them, leading to the disciplinary complaint made by the Board to the Tribunal.

Mr Fletcher submitted that the imposition of conditions on his registration by the Board constituted victimisation pursuant to s 165 of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. He asserted that the decision was unlawful because the Board acted maliciously and in bad faith, and that there was no basis for the Board to form a reasonable belief that his conduct was unsatisfactory.

The Board argued that the decision to impose conditions on Mr Fletcher's registration should be affirmed as the correct and preferable decision. The respondent relied on the expert evidence of an independent psychologist who concluded that Mr Fletcher's performance did not meet standards set out in the Australian Society Code of Ethics.

Held, affirming the decision under review and finding the disciplinary allegations proved:

• The conditions were lawfully imposed. The imposition of the conditions did not constitute victimisation as alleged. There is no factual basis for assertions that the Board acted maliciously or in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
• On the evidence before it, the Tribunal reasonably believes that Mr Fletcher's practice of the profession is, or may be, unsatisfactory;
• The conditions imposed by the Board are both appropriate and necessary for the protection of the public;
• The decision of the Board was the correct and preferable decision and it is confirmed;
• Mr Fletcher has failed to comply with the conditions of his registration;
• This constitutes unprofessional conduct pursuant to the National Law.
• The Tribunal will hear the parties as to whether the conduct constitutes professional misconduct and as to sanction.

Health practitioners - Complaint by the Psychology Board of Australia - unprofessional conduct - Failure to comply with conditions of registration

Administrative Review - Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 - Review of a decision of the Psychology Board of Australia - Conditions imposed on registration

Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 s 165

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 ss 6, 6A; sch 2 ss 156, 178, 179, 180, 193, 199, 202

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 36, 45, 71

Fletcher v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2023] SASCA 36

Fletcher v Psychology Board of Australia [2022] SACAT 81

Oglesby v Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia [2014] QCAT 701

Mr A Schatz with Mr T Ward appeared for the Psychology Board of Australia

The Tribunal has prohibited the publication of the names of, or any material tending to identify, any client or patient of Mr Fletcher.

1. There are two matters before the Tribunal.
2. Matter 2022/SHP000030 (the appeal) concerns an application by which Mr Fletcher sought to appeal under s 199 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (the National Law),[1] from a decision made by the Psychology Board of Australia (the Board) on 4 November 2022, imposing conditions on his registration.
3. Matter 2024/SHP000013 (the disciplinary proceedings) concerns a referral made by the Board under s 193 of the National Law, alleging that Mr Fletcher has been guilty of professional misconduct, in that he has failed to comply with the said conditions.
4. At the urging of both parties, the Tribunal directed that the two matters remain separate but be heard and determined together.[2]

1. Mr Fletcher is a registered psychologist. In 2021 he was the subject of a notification to the Board under the National Law. That notification was made by a social worker from the Department for Child Protection (DCP or Department), Ms Magua, and arose out of Mr Fletcher's treatment of a client, AB (a pseudonym).
2. In September 2021, after following the prescribed processes, the Board took immediate action against Mr Fletcher pursuant to s 156 of the National Law. The Board imposed conditions on his registration.[3] The conditions required Mr Fletcher to be subject to supervision. Mr Fletcher appealed to this Tribunal under s 199 of the National Law against the imposition of the conditions.
3. This appeal was heard in June 2022, and a decision was subsequently delivered on 26 July 2022. The Tribunal (referred to below as "the earlier Tribunal") affirmed the decision of the Board.[4]
4. The parties both requested that the evidence before the earlier Tribunal and the decision of that Tribunal be received in the present proceedings. It is instructive, as important background to the current issues, to set out a large portion of the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, consisting of President Hughes, Ms Davis and Ms Gursansky, after introducing the matter and referring to applicable legislation and case-law, stated as follows (at paras [20]-[80]):[5]

5. The appellant considers that he made a report of child abuse to the Department for Child Protection, which was an allegation that the actions of the Department's officers in removing his client's children from her care constituted abuse of them. He says that upon making this report, he became the subject of a complaint by the Department to the Board and then subject to the immediate action by the Board, and that he has been victimised for his allegations. He asks the Tribunal to investigate or at least consider his claims. He says that there is no basis for him to have been the subject of a complaint to or by the Board and that he objects to his practice of the profession of psychology having been made subject to the condition of supervision.

6. The Board's case is that the appellant's responses to the Department's requests for information about his treatment of his client, Ms AB, were inappropriate and gave rise to question as to whether he had complied with his obligations to Ms AB as a practitioner. The Board considered that the communications potentially revealed that he was treating or proposing to treat members of a family group when their interests did not necessarily coincide. The Board considered that the practitioner's interactions with the Department were potentially unprofessional in style and in the copying of his client into correspondence that was critical of the Department when the Department was working with her towards reunification with her children. The Board considered that the appellant's conduct was sufficiently concerning to warrant it taking immediate action whilst it investigated the matter. It considers that the action taken was the minimum necessary to secure the protection of the public whilst it investigated the issues.

The Communications that led to these proceedings

7. In this case, the Board's case is primarily based on the content of communications between Mr Fletcher and officers of the Department. The Tribunal is well-placed to review those documents and form its own views as to whether their content, and the other documentary evidence before the Tribunal, indicates that Mr Fletcher poses a serious risk to persons such that immediate action is warranted. The Tribunal describes these communications below.
8. The Departmental officer at the Noarlunga office whose communications with Mr Fletcher initiated these proceedings is Ms Kyara-Storm Magua, a social worker. Her evidence was set out in an affidavit sworn on 16 June 2022.[6] She also gave evidence at the hearing before the Tribunal.
9. Ms Magua was communicating frequently at that time with Ms AB whose two children, aged approximately five years and five months respectively, were in the care of the Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection. In March 2021 she took over the role of managing the Department's relationship with Ms AB.
10. Ms AB's care for the children had been compromised, in the Department's view, by her homelessness in 2020, her illicit substance abuse, acts of domestic violence in front of the children, and her lack of emotional regulation. The children were removed from the parents under a three-month order in October 2020. The parents consented to the orders. The Department subsequently applied for a 12 month reunification order in January 2021. A parenting capacity assessment carried out in February 2021 found that Ms AB's ability to parent safely was compromised by illicit substance use and emotional dysregulation and provided the basis for a recommended application for long-term care and protection orders. The Court ordered a 12 month reunification order in May 2021. At that time Ms AB and the children lived at the same residence as her ex-partner.[7]
11. In January 2021, in the context of assessing the prospects of reunification and the longer-term care for the children, Ms Magua's predecessor wrote to Mr Fletcher, whom the Department knew to be providing psychological services to Ms AB, to ascertain what treatment he was providing to Ms AB that might address the parenting issues for the purposes of a report to court. That request and other documents showing the communications between Ms Magua and Mr Fletcher are annexed to Ms Magua's affidavit.

27. The email dated 22 January 2021[8] to Mr Fletcher asked him:

• When AB was referred,
• How long she has been working with him,
• What her engagement in sessions has been like,
• What they had been working on together,
• When the last appointment was and the next appointment was scheduled for,
• What the frequency of appointments had been.

1. The letter provided in response was dated 2 February 2022.[9] Mr Fletcher stated that he had been treating Ms AB since 2010 but monthly since 2018 for Adjustment Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress and appointments were at that time fortnightly. The letter contained no description of treatment but expressed across two pages the view that Ms AB's current stress was caused by the abusive act of the removal of her children by the Department. The letter described Ms AB's 'good character and secure established recovery from former addition', and her need for accommodation and reunification with her children so that she could continue to be the devoted mother that she needed to be in order to optimise her recovery from drug addiction. He sent a copy of his letter to Ms AB.
2. Ms Magua followed up the letter with a phone call to Mr Fletcher on 12 March 2021 to obtain information requested in her email but not contained in the letter. Ms Magua made a record of the conversation.[10] Relevant to these proceedings, Ms Magua's note of the call states that Mr Fletcher told Ms Magua that he disagreed with the concerns the Department held about Ms AB's parenting capacity and considered the children's removal to be an act of child abuse. He did not provide an account of the treatment he was providing to Ms AB but stated that AB's challenges with emotional regulation were caused by the Department's act of removing her children.
3. Ms Magua then obtained Ms AB's consent to provide further information to Mr Fletcher so that he might be provided with further information about her, including that she had recently failed a number of drug tests, to assist him to understand the foundation for the Department's concerns.
4. On 8 April 2021, Ms Magua again emailed Mr Fletcher setting out the concerns that the Department held in respect of Ms Magua's parenting capacity and seeking an update to inform a Departmental review meeting. The email[11] said:

"Hi Jim > > I spoke to you a month ago regarding [Ms AB] and her child protection concerns. Have you seen [Ms AB] since? I will be holding a review meeting to discuss her progress next week and an update from you would be appreciated. > > To advise you of the concerns we hold for [Ms AB], she has a history of substance use with information indicating she continued to use substances during her last pregnancy. She has refused to take drug screens at times throughout our involvement; the Department ceased them since March due to her providing no rationale as to why and offering her to approach the Department when she is no longer using and is willing to re-engage with drug testing. She stated to me yesterday she is ready to re-start screening as of next week. > > Previously [Ms AB] showed little insight into how these concerns impact on children, as well as their exposure to domestic violence she experienced in both relationships [with the fathers of the children K and J]. [Ms AB] still resides with her ex-partner, sleeping on his couch which is not currently providing a safe environment for the children to be reunified to. When the children were removed, [Ms AB] reportedly was observed to continuously yell at [Child K], as well as directing inappropriate language towards him. > > [Ms AB] has a lot of unresolved trauma and as I discussed with you, needs additional support with emotional regulation. > > Since our interaction, she has progressed with starting to acknowledge the concerns and the impact of domestic violence and drug use on children which is an extremely positive step forward."

5. Mr Fletcher responded by email dated 15 April 2022[12] attaching a report in relation to Ms AB.[13] The eight-page report does not describe any treatment. It contains paragraphs that seek to persuade the reader that Ms AB is a "devoted mother" (which he capitalises), for which Mr Fletcher says there is "evidential and therapeutic substantiation for this fact". It contains a description of Ms AB as having had her confidence shaken by the removal of the children and her belief that she has "failed to protect her children from interventions of gross damage and attacks upon them in the removal of their security and Maternal Bond."
6. Mr Fletcher asserts that he is able to "reliably confirm that [Ms AB] is no longer an addict nor can be legitimately described as an addict". The letter states that he is "a professional Child Psychologist of 44+ years standing during which [he has] been professionally iconic for always placing children's best interests first ... ". (his emphasis). He states that a guiding principle is that "REMOVAL OF A PARENT FROM A CHILD IS AN ABUSE OF THAT CHILD" (his capitalisation).
7. Mr Fletcher's report contains reference to a disclosure by the eldest child [K] to Mr Fletcher that gives rise to a concern that the eldest child may have been involved in a sexual act with his father (Ms AB's first ex-partner).
8. The report concludes with the following response to Ms Magua's email dated 8 April 2022:

"Overall the SYSTEMIC ABUSE to [Child K] is clear. What is also clear is that there is a just a vague lists of 'concerns' reacted to insensitively without evidential substantiation that are causative of this ABUSE.

• The shouting matter within these concerns is hearsay and included pejoratively rather than with any perception of circumstances and [Child J's] Father's previous partner has potential malicious and prejudicial intent... and
• The living arrangements are not culpable and are prejudicially mis-described as [Ms AB] living at her boyfriend's house when the evidence is that she is living at his parent's house on the couch ... the children are accommodated inside the house and her former partner is living in his parent's shed. There is a pejorative confusion of co-habiting at not choice of this domicile."

(a) There are some very obvious differences between a therapeutic approach to a Problem and a legal one.

(i) In essence a therapeutic approach is an ADDRESS to a PROBLEM that requires APPRECIATION of the people involved.

(ii) A Legal Approach is essentially ADVERSARY and so constitutes an ATTACK on a PERSON to seek PUNISHMENT for mis-demeanours. 36. At around this time, Ms Magua met with Ms AB's ex-partner who informed her that he had also been referred to Mr Fletcher and that the ex-partner had reported to her that Mr Fletcher was angry with the Department because the Department had applied to remove his (Mr Fletcher's) child. That led to a concern arising for Ms Magua that Mr Fletcher may not be bringing an objective view about the Department's conduct to his communications with the Department about Ms AB. Ms Magua was also of the view that Ms AB's interests and her ex-partner's interests did not coincide because of violence in the relationship such that it may not be beneficial for them both to be treated by the same psychologist.

(c) This creates an anomaly clearly exhibited in [Ms AB's] case for Child Protection Authorities choosing to utilise ADVERSARY functions within the Courts.

(d) the Anomaly is that if an ADVERSARY approach is utilized on pretext of PROTECTION of a child ... then most usually no matter what is the outcome of an ADVERSARY process ... then the child loses ... which then confounds the verbalized intent which by legislation may be stated as the best interests of a child being paramount.

(e) Children suffering the loss and removal of their parent by legal attack as has occurred for (child K) and (child J) does not in any obvious way meet a definition of protection.

(f) the issue in this report is that the consequences being visited upon these children is very traumatic for their mother and their suffering even when not causatively her decision yet is still causing her to question her own loving motherhood."

• 36. At around this time, Ms Magua met with Ms AB's ex-partner who informed her that he had also been referred to Mr Fletcher and that the ex-partner had reported to her that Mr Fletcher was angry with the Department because the Department had applied to remove his (Mr Fletcher's) child. That led to a concern arising for Ms Magua that Mr Fletcher may not be bringing an objective view about the Department's conduct to his communications with the Department about Ms AB. Ms Magua was also of the view that Ms AB's interests and her ex-partner's interests did not coincide because of violence in the relationship such that it may not be beneficial for them both to be treated by the same psychologist.

1. Ms Magua responded to Mr Fletcher's email dated 15 April 2022 with some further specific questions arising out of the report.[14]
2. Mr Fletcher responded with a further five-page report dated 22 April 2022[15] the style of which was more conciliatory and the language less inflamed. However, in relation to the repeated question regarding the treatment being provided, offered the following:

(a) While I have sometimes described interventions and programs in documents for court purposes, I also know these descriptions are rarely appreciated and especially since a therapeutic and legal perspectives are structurally disparate and so the focus of my current report has been to identify therapeutic needs rather than describe sometimes still to be adapted treatment.

(b) However, from your professional perspective as a social worker the simplest categorical therapeutic description is that of problem solving ... and that this is joint and participatory progressing from immediacy of crisis through to long-term developmental and adjustment concerns as therapy progresses. The focus usually begins at an immediate physical level and then progresses to deeper emotional concerns of address in the limbic system initially to achieve greater cerebral control of these functions.

The Immediate Action Process

1. Ms Magua raised her concern with APHRA in an electronic notification 7 of concern document dated 30 April 2021. The concern can be summarised as raising the following issues:
   • Mr Fletcher did not document treatment when asked to by the Department,
   • Mr Fletcher accidentally copied a letter addressed to Ms AB to a staff member of the Department, in which he criticised the Department,
   • That Mr Fletcher alleged that the removal of the children from Ms AB constituted child abuse,
   • That he did not think that the children should have been removed,
   • That he did not believe that Ms AB was a victim of domestic violence from her partner because the partner had told Mr Fletcher that it was untrue,
   • That he was providing uncharged phone consultations to Ms AB,
   • That he was teaching Ms AB a coping strategy that entailed laughing and joking when reminded of her previous stressors,
   • That he included in his report a disclosure by a child of potential sexual harm that he had not reported at the time he learnt of it,
   • That he is not dissuading Ms AB from having her child or her ex-partner (the child's father), referred to him for treatment,
   • That the father of the child and the mother of the child both reported to Ms Magua that Mr Fletcher is angry with the Department for removing his own child,
   • That he continued to discuss the contents of his reports about Ms AB, with her.
2. On 16 September 2021 AHPRA provided its 'show cause' letter to Mr Fletcher. The letter stated that the Board was proposing to take immediate action to impose conditions on Mr Fletcher's registration because it believed that because of his performance and/or conduct he posed a serious risk to persons and it was necessary to do so to protect public health or safety. The letter set out seven paragraphs of reasons indicating that the Board had made the decision based on the notification by Ms Magua and the concern raised regarding his ability to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest, whether he was providing appropriate treatment, his failure to provide information about treatment, failure to report a "disclosure" by a child to the Department, his professional communication style including strong personal views, and a lack of objectivity and potential lack of competence.
3. Mr Fletcher responded to the show cause letter in several separate documents emailed to AHPRA over several days, setting out his responses which have largely remained consistent throughout the proceedings and will be discussed in more detail later in this decision. The responses contain several questions put by Mr Fletcher indicating that Mr Fletcher had not at that time appreciated, and possibly still does not appreciate, the distinction between the immediate action process and the disciplinary process. He expressed the view that he considered that his guilt of unprofessional conduct had been determined at that point without allegations of such being put to him or substantiated.
4. At the heart of his response, however, there has remained his unwavering contention, as put in his initial response:

"What has occurred is that I included what is a MANDATED Observation of FACT in clearly evidenced plight in ABUSE of two innocent Children coming within the scope of my professional attention as having their mother removed from them at serious impact on their Maternal Bond with one of them in deep trauma and the other only a few months of age".

5. In his further response several days later, he set out his answer to the suggestion that it was a conflict for him to seek to treat both the father of one of the children and the mother of the children in circumstances in which there was a suggestion of domestic violence. Mr Fletcher wrote:

"It is professionally demeaning and a 'damage' to use this lie and while they have the father's child to remove a father's opportunity for me to properly help him HEAL his DRUG ADDICTION... as I have done for the mother... and which conflicts with mothering... except potentially anyone who does NOT have the Children's best interest at heart and are more interested in vindicating their own brutal interventions than in helping these children." > > 44. He concludes (this document) saying that: > > "The complaint is an act of belligerence that 'bad-mouths' me who 'bad-mouths' no-one and does this with a number of scratched up non-substantive and fabricated pretexts which shows a behaviour of twisting non-substantive evidence to be pejorative in a behavioural pattern that is not precise and of questionable professional respect and especially so if this manner of operating is part of any conduct towards Children!"

6. The Board then considered Mr Fletcher's responses and found that the criteria in s 156(1) of the National Law were satisfied. It conveyed its decision to Mr Fletcher in the letter of 27 September 2021 that constitutes the reviewable decision in these proceedings. The Board found that the applicant's conduct posed a serious risk of psychological and emotional harm to his clients and jeopardised the provision of effective treatment. It found that the applicant's conduct demonstrated his failure to accurately and appropriately respond to requests for information, a lack of objectivity and/or a failure to manage potential conflicts of interest contrary to the APS' (Australian Psychological Society's) Code of Ethics as adopted by the Board.
7. The Board also found that the risk posed by the applicant's conduct was heightened because the client who was the subject of this matter appeared to have been inherently vulnerable by virtue of illicit substance use, domestic violence and homelessness.
8. The Board found that due to the absence in Mr Fletcher's solo practice of sufficient individual and organisational risk controls to manage the identified serious risk, it was necessary to take interim action to protect public health or safety by imposing the supervision conditions on the applicant's registration. The letter from the Board, dated 27 September 2021, to Mr Fletcher attached a schedule of conditions. Relevantly, Mr Fletcher was required to:
   • be supervised by another registered psychologist in relation to providing psychological services to multiple clients, conflicts of interest, providing treatment reports and professional communication,
   • undertake the supervision fortnightly for one hour per session until the conditions are removed,
   • have the supervision incorporate a discussion of how he would incorporate any learnings into his practice.
9. The requirements also placed obligations on Mr Fletcher to obtain the Board's approval as to the supervisor and provide reports to AHPRA and meet the costs of the supervision.
10. The Board also decided to refer the allegations for investigation, and to require Mr Fletcher to undergo a health assessment and informed him of these steps in the letter of 27 September 2021.
11. The Tribunal understands that Mr Fletcher has been supervised in accordance with the arrangements by Luciano Guglielmin, Psychologist.

Mr Fletcher's Challenge to the imposition of conditions on his practice

12. Mr Fletcher brought this review on 21 October 2021. Mr Fletcher has the task of establishing that the Board's decision to take immediate action should be set aside.
13. His original grounds contended that the decision was wrong because (and the following is a direct quote):

1. A proper assessment was not made as to whether the actions subject of complaint in fact constitute professional misconduct. 2. The actions subject of complaint did not occur in instance, there is no evidence of them and there are self-evident checkable lies of malice within the complaint. 3. Insufficient attention has been given to the real reason for the complaint as a personal and professional attack for

(a) providing evidence to the Protection Agency itself of the abusive effects they brought upon two vulnerable Children and > > (b) that the controversial complexity warrants the causative analysis in what is > > (c) a discretionary report requested by the Agency itself under no legal compulsion from them yet > > (d) concerning MANDATED matters that ought not be subject to the censuring that is occurring.

1. The matter is intrinsically complex entailing CHILD FIRST Principles and as such REQUIRED the complex professional forms of causal analysis and communication that I provided pro-bono and for which I am being criticized and censured in unwarranted manner. 2. I gave sufficient treatment details, goals, and progress reports for my client. 3. In order to safeguard against an 'alpha' error of allowing someone to practice in harm of the public, the Board has committed a 'beta' error of punishing and censuring me as someone acting in proper safeguard of the public in my psychological therapy. 4. No conflict of interest occurred, and none would have occurred had I assisted the father in the situation to overcome his drug addiction. 5. the Board is failing to distinguish between THERAPY which in my practice entails no Conflict of Interest ... where seeing people from the one family is a major method for RESOLVING CONFLICT ... and the Adversary Legalistic Paradigm with which the complainant is engaged which fallaciously is posing Conflicts of Interest where there are none: Unless with the Agency if it has an interest in the father maintaining his drug addiction ... which is about maintaining the reasons the children have had their parents removed from them and NOT the reduction of Conflict and Harm. 6. The Board itself has failed the 'Harm Test' it has acted in this case to safeguard. 7. It is a lie that I am or was 'angry' .,.. gave 'personal views' rather than provided evidence based observations or was upset that my own child has been removed by DCP ... and DCP has access to this information and so it is a malicious attack to promulgate these pejorative lies with which the Board accords if it acts upon them.
2. He subsequently filed further grounds of review in a 14 page document entitled "The 15 Consolidated Grounds, which he filed on 12 May 2022. The issues raised in that document traverse the same territory as the responses to AHPRA in the 'show cause process', and the matters raised above, in the original grounds set out above, and were amplified by Mr Fletcher at the oral hearing. The Tribunal is left comfortably satisfied that it understands the basis for Mr Fletcher's criticisms of the Board and its actions and why he considers that the decision to take immediate action in the form of imposing conditions on his practice, was wrong.

• 54. At the hearing, the Tribunal received without objection the Board's affidavits.

• 55. Mr Fletcher gave unsworn evidence in the form of various factual assertions in the course of his submissions. The issues that were evidently important to him were that he considered that the Immediate Action was initiated by the malicious action of the Department's officers following his complaint to them, as required by law, and that what they had done in removing the children from their mother constituted child abuse.
  • 56. By and large Mr Fletcher made submissions in a reasoned and calm manner except on one occasion on which he was asked to lower his voice when his temper flared whilst explaining his view of the effect of the Department's actions in removing children from parents. The Tribunal formed the view that Mr Fletcher holds himself in high regard as a psychologist whose practice is child-focused and whose techniques may not be understood by the Department's social workers and particularly not by those officers in Medicare who are responsible for determining the types of treatment that will be funded under mental health care plans. He described himself as "iconic" on several occasions, but did not establish that this was a descriptor of him given by peers.
  • 57. Despite the issue attracting some discussion through the evidence of Ms Magua, at no stage was the answer to the question regarding the nature of the treatment being provided to Ms AB elaborated upon beyond "problem solving".
  • 58. Ms Magua gave evidence, adopting her affidavit of 16 June 2022 and submitting to questions from Mr Fletcher and the Tribunal. The Tribunal found Ms Magua to be an impressive witness who gave her evidence carefully and respectfully.
  • 59. What was apparent from Ms Magua's evidence is that she had no animosity to Mr Fletcher and did not demonstrate a "belligerent" or "malicious" attitude to Mr Fletcher nor a lack of respect or consideration for Ms AB or the children in the Department's care. She readily acknowledged that the removal of a child from a parent was a traumatic event for the child and that it was undertaken only where the safety of the child required it. We find no evidence, in the written documents or in her evidence, of Ms Magua acting in other than a professional and considered manner in the various tasks required of an officer of the Department contributing to the care of children who have been removed from their parents and the decisions that are made once that has occurred as to whether and if so how reunification with parents may occur.
  • 60. Ms Rayment gave evidence. Her report was obtained by the Board to provide the Tribunal with an expert opinion as to Mr Fletcher's compliance with professional obligations in the practice of psychology.
  • 61. In her report, Ms Rayment expresses the following opinions:
    • Mr Fletcher's reports to the Department ought to have set out how he had provided Ms AB with support and strategies to help her manage her distress arising from the removal of her children and to address any mental health, substance use or relationship issues that impacted on her parenting prior to the removal;
    • Mr Fletcher ought not have conveyed his complaints about the Department's actions in a psychological report with respect to his client but through the various channels for complaints within and outside of the Department;
    • That a psychological report regarding a client is not the place for a mandated report of child abuse;
    • That Mr Fletcher's communications could at times be perceived to be disrespectful, demeaning and denigrating in breach of his ethical obligations under the Code of Ethics (APS, 2007);
    • That Mr Fletcher's treatment reports did not make reference to the therapeutic modality which was inconsistent with the conditions on which Medicare funded particular psychological strategies under mental health care plans;
    • That his responses to the Department were not "beneficial to [Ms AB's] interests" and that his singular focus on his opinion that the removal of the children was unjustified prevented him from providing the information sought by the Department which in turn was required for the making of the Department's decisions concerning reunification of the children with her, and as such he did not collaborate with others for her benefit, contrary to the Code of Ethics;
    • Mr Fletcher's record-keeping of the treatment sessions was "below the standard reasonably expected for a psychologist of his level of experience" as it lacked mental health treatment plan reports, dates, client presentation, assessment and progress and safety and risk issues;
    • He did not readily cooperate with the investigation into the complaint and "demonstrated little insight regarding how the complaint related to his ethical obligations as a registered psychologist";
    • That the circumstances between his client and her former partner gave rise to the reasonably foreseeable outcome that their interests did not coincide and that he should have avoided treating them both.

1. Much of the discussion focused upon the fact that the nature of the treatment provided by Mr Fletcher was required to be identified in order for it to be approved for Medicare purposes under a mental health plan. Mr Fletcher rejected the proposition that the funding body may determine treatment options. He did not accept that the funding body did not determine treatment options but funded treatment options. 2. Of significance to the Tribunal was the issue that emerged from that evidence that the report Mr Fletcher asserts he made as a mandated report was his written response to a request for information from the Department about his treatment of Ms AB that the Department's actions amounted to child abuse. When it was put to Mr Fletcher that it was usual, particularly for a health professional, to report child abuse using the Child Abuse Report Line referred to in s 31 of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 he maintained that it was usual for him to fulfil his obligations in this way. 3. The Tribunal found Ms Rayment's evidence to be given carefully and thoughtfully. She admitted to some consternation in reaching the conclusion that a peer had failed to meet his professional obligations and yet found that she could not resist such a conclusion in this case. Ms Rayment's opinions were not successfully undermined in cross-examination by Mr Fletcher. 4. The Board also provided the reports of the medical practitioners who had examined Mr Fletcher in the health assessment referral process. These reports did not address directly the issues that were before the Tribunal. At best they may have provided a new additional basis for concluding that immediate action was warranted if any of them had revealed that Mr Fletcher suffered a serious medical condition incompatible with performing his functions as a psychologist. They did not do that and their relevance is limited. However, their content is summarised insofar as it is relevant, below. 5. Associate Professor Kneebone provided an affidavit sworn on 25 May 2022 and a report dated 23 March 2022 following a consultation with Mr Fletcher on 11 March 2022. Associate Professor Kneebone is a registered psychologist with endorsement for the practice of clinical neuropsychology. It was his opinion that: * Mr Fletcher does not demonstrate evidence of a neuropsychological disorder. * He strongly doubted that Mr Fletcher's "unusual and idiosyncratic style of expression" is a consequence of an impairment of neurocognitive function.

67. Associate Professor Kneebone concluded that: > > "I do not have concerns about Mr Fletcher's ability to safely practice from the perspective of his neuropsychological health. However, I understand from Mr Fletcher and AHPRA correspondence that he is required to undergo formal professional development supervision from a registered psychologist for one hour each fortnight. This would appear to be appropriate given the various concerns that have been raised in relation to his professional conduct."

1. Professor Baigent provided an affidavit sworn on 24 May 2022 annexing reports in relation to Mr Fletcher dated 23 November 2021, 14 January 2022 and 25 March 2022. In the latter document, prepared after reviewing Associate Professor Kneebone's report, Professor Baigent said,

"I have carefully considered his opinion together with mine. I could not identify a specific psychiatric impairment in my assessment but felt that it was incomplete without the benefit of the neuropsychological assessment. Consider this result, theoretically there is a small possibility that he has an underlying psychiatric disorder that has not been able to be diagnosed in my cross sectional assessment. For example, Bipolar Disorder is characterised by episodes of mood disturbance and a return to normal baseline in between. However, that is largely conjecture, and there are not enough grounds for me to propose that in Mr Fletcher's case. The accumulation of evidence more strongly supports the explanation that his behaviour, manner of communicating and interacting as described is related to his personality (traits). This shapes judgement, behaviour and preference. Although he has traits of dissociality, I would not classify the extent to which his personality style affects his life as enough to warrant a diagnosis of Personality Disorder. I did not view his traits as sufficiently severe to conclude that he has an impairment as a result. My preferred explanation is that his problems fall in the realm of professional conduct rather than medical impairment. > > On that basis, I do not believe that he has a medical or psychiatric condition that affects his capacity to safely practice psychology." > > Analysis

2. The task of the Tribunal is to determine whether to uphold Mr Fletcher's challenge to the Psychology Board of Australia's decision of 27 September 2021. In doing so, we determine whether the decision to take immediate action and impose conditions of supervision on Mr Fletcher's practice is the correct or preferable outcome in light of the evidence that was before the Board and the evidence we have received since that time.
3. Having reviewed the decision-making process as it was performed by the Board, and considered the evidence that has been gathered since the decision and the evidence provided to the Tribunal for and at the hearing, we are satisfied that the criteria for taking immediate action were, and remain, met.
4. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that an immediate action order does not require proof of the conduct but rather whether there is a reasonable belief that the health practitioner poses a serious risk to persons. We respectfully adopt the analysis of Horneman-Wren J in Oglesby v Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia:

[20] ... I am not of the view that it is necessary to be satisfied that certain conduct will be engaged in by a registered health practitioner before the reasonable belief can be held that the practitioner poses a risk to persons. In my view, it is not even necessary to be satisfied that it is more probable than not that the practitioner will engage in some conduct in the future. In my view, a reasonable belief may be held that a practitioner poses a serious risk to persons if, based upon evidence of past conduct, there is a real possibility that the practitioner will engage in conduct which could be harmful to persons. If the possibility of engaging in the conduct was so remote as to be fanciful, or the possible harm trivial, then I would not think that a belief could reasonably be held that the practitioner posed a serious risk to persons. [Emphasis added]

5. We are satisfied that, because of the manner in which Mr Fletcher responded to the Department's requests for information, his attitude to the issues raised with him, the content of his communications to the Department and the Board, and his evidence to the Tribunal, he poses a serious risk to Ms AB and possibly to other clients.
6. The hostile style of Mr Fletcher's communication with the Department is inimical to the interests of his client. The content of the communications is strongly suggestive that his treatment of Ms AB, and possibly other clients, is not driven by and tailored to an assessment of her needs but by a narrowly-focused approach responsive to his perception of the Department's motives and deficiencies. The content of the communications and his evidence to the Tribunal demonstrates a lack of adherence to ethical obligations and a failure to recognise and address conflicting interests.

74. The risks of serious harm we find to exist are that Mr Fletcher is reasonably likely to:

• Fail to identify the serious harm to a client (including but not limited to Ms AB) that may arise where he seeks to treat members of a family unit whose treatment interests do not coincide,
• Communicate to a client who is working with the Department with respect to his or her children (including but not limited to Ms AB) that the Department's actions are not in the interests of the child,
• Fail to use appropriate treatment methodologies with Ms AB or another client.

1. These are actions or failures that we consider give rise to a risk of serious harm to persons, as such actions or failures are liable to prevent appropriate treatment to such persons where a lack of such treatment could create serious psychological harm.
2. We recognise that not all deficiencies in practice create a risk of serious harm to persons, although they may nevertheless justify disciplinary action (as opposed to immediate action) because they breach other professional obligations, undermine confidence in the profession or undermine other policy objectives of the regulatory regime.
3. We consider that there are other behaviours that Mr Fletcher has engaged in, such as record-keeping and report writing, that give rise to concerns that his conduct may have breached professional standards. However, we do not find that these are matters that give rise, in a sufficiently direct way, to a risk of s_erious harm to persons_. As such, those matters are excluded from our consideration of whether immediate action is required.
4. We accept the medical evidence and in particular that there is no basis for the Tribunal to conclude that medical impairment presents a new intervening basis upon which we might reach the conclusion that immediate action is warranted.
5. The action taken by the Board was to impose a requirement of supervision which, to his credit, Mr Fletcher has embraced in the sense that he has welcomed the interactions with the supervisor. Nevertheless, Mr Fletcher opposes the supervision requirement because of the burden it places upon him and the fact that it is consequent upon the Board's view of his actions which he considers to be unfair and unfounded.
6. We accept that because immediate action is undertaken without a fact-finding process as in-depth as that which is entailed for a disciplinary action, the action taken must be the minimum necessary to achieve the protection of the public. We consider that the imposition of conditions achieves that balance of the protection of the public and the interference with Mr Fletcher's practice, and is the response that least interferes with his practice as is consistent with that outcome.
7. Mr Fletcher lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge this decision. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal as the Tribunal decision had been presided over by a presidential member of the Tribunal.[16] On 3 April 2023 the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, stating that the grounds of appeal, insofar as they could be understood, were without legal merit.[17]
8. In the meantime, however, the Board had rescinded the conditions placed on Mr Fletcher's registration by way of immediate action but had imposed conditions on his registration by way of action under s 178 of the National Law (the s 178 conditions). This decision was made by the Board on 4 November 2022 and communicated to Mr Fletcher by letter dated 18 November 2022.[18]
9. On 8 December 2022 Mr Fletcher filed an online application in the Tribunal seeking to have this new decision reviewed pursuant to s 199 of the National Law. The application made it clear that he was seeking review of the decision communicated on 18 November 2022. He attached a copy of that letter.[19]
10. A Tribunal matter file was created and was assigned matter number 2022/SHP000030.
11. On 9 December 2022, a Deputy Registrar made a note on the file to the effect that "The applicant is required to lodge their appeal with the Supreme Court. There is no further review in this matter with SACAT."
12. The Deputy Registrar authorised a refund of the application fee and appears to have sent Mr Fletcher the form required to seek a refund. Mr Fletcher did not ever complete or return that form. According to a note on file, he advised a staff member of the Tribunal that he "doesn't want a refund if it means we will deny his appeal."
13. On 24 January 2023, a Tribunal case officer sent a letter to Mr Fletcher as follows: "The Deputy Registrar has advised that the applicant is required to lodge their appeal with the Supreme Court. There is no further review within SACAT."
14. On 1 February 2023, the Deputy Registrar made notes on the file as follows: "Matter closed - registered in error" and "The right of appeal now lies with the Supreme Court. This matter is stayed, and the applicant will be refunded his application fee, once he advises SACAT of his bank account details for refunding his application fee." On 1 March 2023, after receiving no response from Mr Fletcher, the case officer cancelled further activities on the file.
15. There is no further relevant entry on the file. The Board was not advised of the lodgement of the application. The matter was not listed for hearing. The Tribunal was not constituted to hear the matter. No submissions were invited from the parties. No formal order was drawn up, signed or sealed. Mr Fletcher did not take any action to challenge the rejection of his purported appeal.
16. It is apparent that the Deputy Registrar acted on the false assumption that the purported appeal was another attempt to challenge the decision given by the Tribunal on 26 July 2022. He failed to appreciate that the Board had made a fresh decision, giving rise to a fresh right of appeal.
17. Subsequently, the Board has taken disciplinary action against Mr Fletcher based upon an allegation that he has failed to comply with the s 178 conditions which the Board placed on his registration in November 2022.[20] The Board referred this matter to the Tribunal under s 193 of the National Law on 18 April 2024. This application was assigned SACAT matter number 2024/SHP000013.
18. This disciplinary matter was about to proceed to hearing when the circumstances described above became known. Mr Fletcher then asked that his appeal against the November 2022 decision of the Board be heard and determined. He asked that it be heard "co-jointly" with the disciplinary action. The Tribunal accordingly heard submissions as to the status of the purported appeal.
19. By Statement of Reasons issued on 21 February 2025,[21] the Tribunal found that there had been a fundamental failure by the Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction required to be exercised by legislation and that the appeal had not been heard, determined or lawfully disposed of in any way.
20. The Tribunal determined that the appeal was extant and should now be heard and determined. It directed, consistently with the joint request of the parties, that the two proceedings should remain as separate proceedings but be heard together.[22]

1. The appeal and the disciplinary proceedings were heard together by the Tribunal on 29 and 30 April 2025.[23] Before proceeding to our analysis of the evidence and issues, we will note important legislative provisions and legal principles.
2. Part 8 of the National Law deals with "Health, Performance and Conduct". It provides inter alia for mandatory or voluntary notifications, assessment of matters notified, immediate action, investigations, health and performance assessments, and health or professional standards panels.
3. Section 193 of the National Law provides for more serious disciplinary matters to be referred to the responsible tribunal, which in South Australia is the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT).[24] After conducting a hearing, the Tribunal has power under s 196 of the National Law to make various findings, including findings of unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct. It may impose various sanctions.
4. However, in less serious matters, the Board has the ability to take certain action under s 178 of the National Law. Sections 178 - 180 relevantly provide:

S 178 - National Board may take action > > (1) This section applies if -

(a) a National Board reasonably believes, because of a notification or for any other reason -

(i) the way a registered health practitioner registered in a health profession for which the Board is established practises the health profession, or the practitioner's professional conduct, is or may be unsatisfactory; or

(ii) .... or

(iii) .... or

(iv) .... Or

(v) ....

and

(b) the matter is not required to be referred to a responsible tribunal under section 193, including because of a decision made under section 193A that it is not in the public interest; and

(c) the Board decides it is not necessary or appropriate to refer the matter to a panel.

(2) The National Board may decide to take one or more of the following actions (relevant action) in relation to the registered health practitioner or student -

(a) caution the registered health practitioner or student;

(b) accept an undertaking from the registered health practitioner or student;

(c) impose conditions on the practitioner's or student's registration, including, for example, in relation to a practitioner -

(i) a condition requiring the practitioner to complete specified further education or training within a specified period; or

(ii) a condition requiring the practitioner to undertake a specified period of supervised practice; or

(iii) a condition requiring the practitioner to do, or refrain from doing, something in connection with the practitioner's practice; or

(iv) a condition requiring the practitioner to manage the practitioner's practice in a specified way; or

(v) a condition requiring the practitioner to report to a specified person at specified times about the practitioner's practice; or

(vi) a condition requiring the practitioner not to employ, engage or recommend a specified person, or class of persons;

(d) refer the matter to another entity, including, for example, a health complaints entity, for investigation or other action.

(3) If the National Board decides to impose a condition on the registered health practitioner's or student's registration, the Board must also decide a review period for the condition.

179 - Show cause process

(1) If a National Board is proposing to take relevant action in relation to a registered health practitioner or student, the Board must -

(a) give the practitioner or student written notice of the proposed relevant action; and

(b) invite the practitioner or student to make a written or verbal submission to the Board, within the reasonable time stated in the notice, about the proposed relevant action.

(2) After considering any submissions made by the registered health practitioner or student in accordance with this section, the National Board must decide to -

(a) take no action in relation to the matter; or

(b) do any of the following -

(i) take the proposed relevant action or other relevant action;

(ii) take other action under this Part;

(iii) refer the matter to another entity, including, for example, a health complaints entity, for investigation or other action.

180 - Notice to be given to health practitioner or student and notifier

(1) As soon as practicable after making a decision under section 179(2), the National Board must give written notice of the decision to -

(a) the registered health practitioner or student; and

(b) if the decision was the result of a notification, the notifier.

(2) A notice under subsection (1)(b) may also include the reasons for the decision.

1. Pursuant to s 199(1)(e) of the National Law, a person may appeal to the responsible tribunal[25] against a decision by a national Board to impose a condition on that person's registration. After hearing an appeal, the responsible tribunal may confirm the decision being reviewed, amend it, or substitute another decision.[26]
2. Pursuant to s 6A of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (the Health Practitioner Act), the appeal is to proceed as a review of the decision under s 34 of the SACAT Act. Section 34 requires that the Tribunal must examine the decision under review by way of re-hearing.[27] It must reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the original decision-maker.[28]
3. The Tribunal must examine the evidence or material before the decision-maker, together with any further evidence or material that the Tribunal decides, in the circumstances of the particular case, to admit.[29]
4. Section 36 of the SACAT Act provides:

Effect of review proceedings on decision being reviewed > > (1) The commencement of proceedings for the review of a decision does not affect the operation of the decision or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision unless - > > (a) the relevant Act states otherwise; or > > (b) an order is made under subsection (2). > > (2) On or after the commencement of proceedings for the review of a decision, the Tribunal or the decision-maker may, on application or on its own initiative, make an order staying or varying the operation or the implementation of the whole or a part of the reviewable decision pending the determination of the matter, or until such time (whether before or after the determination of the matter) as the Tribunal or the decision-maker may specify, if the Tribunal, or the decision-maker, is satisfied that it is just and reasonable in the circumstances to make the order. > > (3) An order by the Tribunal or the decision-maker under this section - > > (a) is subject to such conditions as are specified in the order; and > > (b) may be varied or revoked - > > (i) in any case - by further order of the Tribunal; or

(ii) if the order was made by the decision-maker - by further order by the decision-maker or the Tribunal.

1. In imposing the s 178 Conditions, the Board followed the show-cause process set out in s 179.
2. By letter dated 4 October 2022[30] the Board advised Mr Fletcher that it proposed to remove the conditions imposed as immediate action, but to impose fresh conditions on his registration pursuant to s 178 of the National Law. The fresh conditions would require Mr Fletcher to undertake education and an audit of practice. The proposed conditions were attached to the letter.[31] Mr Fletcher was invited to submit written and/or verbal submissions to the Board concerning the proposed conditions.
3. The letter dated 4 October 2022 detailed the information taken into account by the Board and provided a summary of the Board's reasons for the proposed conditions.[32]
4. The respondent provided verbal and written submissions to the Board. The Board considered those submissions (which are summarised in the extract below) but decided to impose the conditions as previously proposed. This decision was made on 4 November 2022 and communicated to Mr Fletcher by letter dated 18 November 2022.[33]
5. The Board gave the following Reasons for its decision:

1. The notification identified concerns about your health, your ability to safely practise the profession and your performance in relation to the provision of psychological services, particularly with regard to Ms [AB]. 2. You have provided numerous submissions and emails in response to the notification, and additional communication. Your submissions indicate that you disagree with the allegations made against you, but your main focus appears to be on a perceived attack on you by the Department for Child Protection (DCP) and the Psychology Board. 3. We required you to undergo a health assessment, as we formed the reasonable belief that you had or may have an impairment which detrimentally affects, or is likely to detrimentally affect, your capacity to practice the Psychology profession. 4. Professor Michael Baigent and Associate Professor Anthony Kneebone conducted health assessments, which included an interview, examination and comprehensive neuropsychological testing. Neither Professor Baigent nor Associate Professor Kneebone had any major concerns about your physical or mental health. 5. We refer to the independent opinion report of Ms Patricia Rayment who opined that your performance did not meet the standards expected in the following areas of the Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics: A.2.1, A.2.3, B.2.1 B.3, B.8.1, B.12. 6. On consideration of the information available, we reasonably believe that your performance is or may be unsatisfactory because, as noted in the report of Ms Rayment: 1. the content of your written communications could at times be perceived as disrespectful, demeaning and denigrating; 2. you inappropriately conveyed your complaints about DCP within the content of your support letter and psychological reports; 3. there was no indication that you utilised knowledge of effective, evidence-based interventions for Ms [AB]'s anxiety, depression and PTSD, used any formal assessment measures for Ms [AB]'s PTSD or assessed for or documented symptoms consistent with the diagnostic criteria for PTSD; 4. you did not collaborate with others to the benefit of your client, did not take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your conduct and did not take reasonable steps to prevent harm occurring as a result of your conduct; 5. your handwritten notes were difficult to interpret. All but three of these were undated, they did not indicate the name of the client, there was no documented further assessment regarding her mental health, there were no treatment plans regarding the intervention/s being used and no summary regarding therapeutic progress; 6. there were no mental health treatment plan progress reports as required by Medicare when completing any initial or subsequent course of treatment; and 7. despite being requested, the reports to DCP also did not provide clear information regarding the psychological services provided, treatment plans or client progress toward therapeutic goals.

• 7. Given that your supervisor, Mr Guglielmin, has advised that you have participated actively in their sessions and he does not have concerns about your current practice as a Psychologist, a reasonable belief can no longer be maintained that because of your conduct and/or performance you pose a serious risk. Immediate action is therefore no longer necessary and removal of the conditions requiring supervision, is appropriate.
  • 8. However, Mr Guglielmin believed that there is "still progress to be made in relation to the Board's concern regarding provision of treating reports and professional communication".

1. On 2 September 2022 we proposed that conditions requiring you to undertake education and to submit to an audit of your practice after 6 months, are imposed on your registration as this will ensure that your performance is in accordance with expected standards and provide sufficient time to assess whether any changes implemented by you in response to the supervision and education have been embedded in your practice.

• 10. In response to the proposed conditions, you provided a written submission in lieu of the possibility of technical difficulties preventing you from providing a verbal submission. The written submission was substantively the same as that which was provided by verbal submission (see below).

• 11. In response to the proposed conditions you made the following verbal submissions:
  1. You have practised for 46 years and your pattern of practice is problem solving. You apply the two principles of love and truth to your practice and this model of practice does not allow harm to be created. You developed this model when conducting post-grad research.
  2. Your model of practice identifies the chief interest of the child and you place this first. Therefore, there can be no conflict of interest that you have engaged in.
  3. In relation to this case, you had got the mother off drugs. Her key identity is as a loving mother who is devoted to her kids. The child had previously been traumatised by separation from the mother. The family needed to stay together and the DCP's goal was to split the family. The DCP placed the child with a person who the child said had warm white stuff coming from his penis, and their actions are child abuse.
  4. You articulated your concerns in a report to the DCP, which was not a complaint, and you have been personally attacked by the DCP. However, you will not back down and will always choose to do the right thing by the children.
  5. You accept that you may not keep your files in the manner which the Board wants them to be kept but this doesn't cause harm to clients.
  6. The Board's involvement has imposed on your health and you suffered a burst appendix.
  7. The reports you write are in relation to complex matters. You do not agree that you write bad reports, and you stand by what you wrote, particularly the report dated 13 April.
  8. Your supervisor has acknowledged the complexity of your cases.
  9. You do not need to be educated further.
  10. The Board is taking a knee-jerk action in response to a notification made by a vindictive social worker. Nothing in the notification is true.
  11. You focus on what the best thing to do for your client is, and you do not worry about what the Board will do. Putting restrictions on your registration is a threat to your clients.
  12. You will continue to do what you think is right. There has been no misconduct. You will provide your files to the Board to review.

1. We considered your submissions. However, we remain of the view that it is necessary to impose conditions on your registration. The risk you pose in your practice is ongoing as you continue to write reports, and your supervisor has identified report writing as an area for improvement. You show no insight into how your communication and the lack of collaboration with the DCP compromised the best interests of your client. Furthermore, you show a lack of insight into how you would have been able to put your client's interest first when providing psychological services to members of the same family about family relationship issues.
2. The Conditions imposed by the Board are set out as an attachment to the letter as follows:

3. The Practitioner must undertake and successfully complete a program of education, approved by the Psychology Board of Australia and including a reflective practice report, in relation to the provision of treating reports and professional communication, including collaboration with other colleagues/health professionals.
4. Within 28 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must make a nomination to undertake either one on one education or a formal education course (the education) as follows:

5. On the approved form (HPN24), nominate for approval by the Board an education course, assessment or program (the education) addressing the topics required. The Practitioner must ensure the nomination includes a copy of the curriculum of the education.

6. On the approved form (HPN11):
   1. nominate a person(s) to be approved by the Board to act as educator, and
   2. provide acknowledgement that Ahpra will obtain a report from the approved educator at the conclusion of the education.
7. The Practitioner must ensure that the nomination of an educator is accompanied by acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA11), from the nominated educator and by an education plan outlining the form the education will take and how the topics of the education will be addressed.
8. The education should consist of a minimum number of 8 hours.
9. The Practitioner must provide evidence to Ahpra of the successful completion of the education within 2 months of the notice of the Board's approval of the education.

10. The Practitioner must submit to an audit of their practice (the audit), including any supporting records, within 6 Months of the notice of the imposition of these conditions by permitting an auditor (the auditor) approved by the Psychology Board of Australia (the Board) to attend any and all places of practice (public and private) for the purpose of the audit and by permitting the auditor to provide a report in relation to the findings of the audit. The audit and the audit report are to focus on record keeping, professional written communication including report writing, management of multiple client relationships and matters involving child protection, and must include, at a minimum, 20 client records.
11. Within 28 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must provide to Ahpra:
    1. nomination, on the approved form (HPN12), of an auditor(s) to be approved by the Board
    2. acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPN12), that Ahpra will seek reports from the approved auditor at the conclusion of each audit, and
    3. acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA12), from the nominated auditor.
12. Within 28 days of the notice of the approval of the nominated auditor, the Practitioner is to provide a written audit plan, from the approved auditor, outlining the form the audit will take and how the area of concerns for the Board will be addressed. The audit will take the form determined by the auditor.
13. In the event an approved auditor is no longer willing or able to provide the audit required, the Practitioner must notify Ahpra within fourteen days of becoming aware of this and provide a new nomination of a proposed auditor(s) to Ahpra in the same terms as the previous nomination of auditor(s).
14. Within 21 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions the Practitioner must provide to Ahpra, on the approved form (HPC), the contact details of a senior person, such as the Director of Medical Services, Senior Practice Manager, Senior Manager, Senior Partner, Proprietor, Owner, or equivalent (the senior person) at each current place of practice. In providing this form, the practitioner acknowledges that Ahpra will contact the senior person and provide them with a copy of the conditions on the practitioner's registration or confirm that the senior person has received a copy of the conditions from the practitioner. The practitioner will be required to provide the same form:
    1. within seven days of the commencement of practice at each subsequent place of practice, and
    2. within seven days of each and every notice of any subsequent alteration of these conditions.
15. All costs associated with compliance with the conditions on their registration are at the Practitioner's own expense

Text on public register > > As Above > > Review period > > 8 months

1. In his notice of appeal filed on 8 December 2022, the respondent asserted that "the decision was in breach of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017". He refers to s 165 of that Act. Section 165 provides:

Victimisation > > (1) A person who causes detriment to another on the ground, or substantially on the ground, that the other person or a third person has provided, or intends to provide, information under this Act commits an act of victimisation. > > (2) However, causing detriment on the ground that a person - > > (a) has made a false allegation; or > > (b) has not acted in good faith, > > does not constitute an act of victimisation. > > (3) An act of victimisation under this Act may be dealt with - > > (a) as a tort; or > > (b) as if it were an act of victimisation under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, > > but, if the victim commences proceedings in a court seeking a remedy in tort, the victim cannot subsequently lodge a complaint under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 and, conversely, if the victim lodges a complaint under that Act, the victim cannot subsequently commence proceedings in a court seeking a remedy in tort. > > (4) If a complaint alleging an act of victimisation under this Act has been lodged with the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and the Commissioner is of the opinion that the subject matter of the complaint has already been adequately dealt with by a competent authority, the Commissioner may decline to act on the complaint or to proceed further with action on the complaint. > > (5) In proceedings against a person seeking a remedy in tort for an act of victimisation committed by an employee or agent of the person, it is a defence to prove that the person exercised all reasonable diligence to ensure that the employee or agent would not commit an act of victimisation. > > (6) A person who personally commits an act of victimisation under this Act is guilty of an offence. > > Maximum penalty: $10 000. > > (7) Proceedings for an offence against subsection (6) may only be commenced by a police officer or a person approved by either the Commissioner of Police or the Director of Public Prosecutions. > > (8) In this section - > > detriment includes - > > (a) injury, damage or loss; or > > (b) intimidation or harassment; or

(c) discrimination, disadvantage or adverse treatment in relation to a person's employment; or

(d) threats of reprisal.

1. As explained by the earlier Tribunal in its decision dated 26 July 2022, Mr Fletcher claims that he made a report of child abuse, namely a report that DCP had abused the children by removing them from their mother. He claims that the Board victimised him for doing so.
2. Mr Fletcher seeks to relitigate that same argument in the present appeal. He claims that the Board, by imposing the s 178 conditions on his registration, has again victimised him due to the fact that he made that report.
3. Furthermore, Mr Fletcher continues to assert that the DCP (and specifically the notifier) acted maliciously in making the notification. He asserts that DCP acted against him to cover up the child abuse he had reported. He further claims that the Board, in imposing the conditions, also acted to cover up his report of child abuse. He goes as far as to suggest that the decision of this Tribunal in July 2022 was also complicit in the concealment of the child abuse.
4. Mr Fletcher maintains that the Board must have imposed the conditions for this improper purpose as there was nothing about his behaviour which was unsatisfactory and no valid reason for the Board to act against him.
5. As we understood the grounds of appeal pursued by Mr Fletcher before this Tribunal, he asserts:

(a) The Board's decision was unlawful because it was made in breach of s 165.

(b) It was unlawful because the Board acted maliciously and in bad faith.

(c) There was no basis for the Board to form a reasonable belief that the way he practised psychology or his professional conduct, was, or might be, unsatisfactory (and that the Tribunal should not form such a view).

(d) The conditions were inappropriate and unnecessary and should be removed.

1. The Tribunal is required to conduct a review on the merits and to come to the correct and preferable decision. It is not necessary for Mr Fletcher to demonstrate error on the part of the Board. The Tribunal must stand in the shoes of the Board and consider the issues under s 178.

1. The Tribunal had before it the material that was before the Board when it imposed the conditions. It had further material filed by the Board in relation to the disciplinary proceedings. This included material previously provided to the Board by Mr Fletcher. Mr Fletcher filed further voluminous affidavits and materials in the Tribunal.
2. The Board contended that much of the material provided to the Board and to the Tribunal by Mr Fletcher was irrelevant and scandalous. It objected to the receipt of that material and submitted that the material should be struck out. The Tribunal has taken the pragmatic approach of receiving the material subject to objection.
3. Mr Fletcher gave evidence on his appeal (which was received as evidence in both proceedings). He was cross-examined at some length by counsel for the Board. Ms Rayment (whom the Board had engaged to provide expert opinion evidence) gave evidence and was cross-examined by Mr Fletcher. Mr Fletcher did not seek to cross-examine the notifier, Ms Magua, who had given evidence before the earlier Tribunal. Her affidavit evidence was received as well as the transcript of the earlier appeal proceedings.
4. Despite the voluminous material filed, the issues in this case are straightforward. Mr Fletcher's position was clear.

1. In our view, Ms Rayment gave her evidence thoughtfully and objectively. She substantially confirmed the opinions expressed in her two reports[34] and given in the earlier Tribunal proceedings. Her views were not eroded in any way during cross-examination. We found her to be a careful and convincing expert witness. We reject completely any suggestion that she was motivated by malice towards Mr Fletcher or that she acted inappropriately in any way in her involvement with this case. We found her evidence compelling. We note that she acknowledged and defended Mr Fletcher's right to provide relevant information and opinions to the Department and to answer the professional concerns put to him by the Board.[35] Her criticism was not on the ground that he had done either of these things. It related to a range of other issues which are set out in her reports and referred to by the Board in its decision. Insofar as she criticised the unethical nature of Mr Fletcher's communications, it should be noted that she was not just referring to communications to DCP, but to communications to his client AB, communications to the Board/AHPRA, and communications to solicitors acting for the Board. These were professional communications by a registered person relative to the National Law and, as Ms Rayment opined, they repeatedly contained material in clear breach of the Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics).[36] Relevant provisions of the Code of Ethics include the following:

A2. Respect > > A.2.1 In the course of their conduct, psychologists:

(a) communicate respect for other people through their actions and language;

(b) do not behave in a manner that, having regard to the context, may reasonably be perceived as coercive or demeaning;

(c) respect the legal rights and moral rights of others;

(d) do not denigrate the character of people by engaging in conduct that demeans them as persons, or defames or harasses them.

A2.2 Psychologists act with due regard for the needs, special competencies and obligations of their colleagues in psychology and other professions.

A2.3 When psychologists have cause to disagree with a colleague in psychology or another profession on professional issues they refrain from making intemperate criticism.

A2.4 When psychologists in the course of their professional activities are required to review or comment on the qualifications, competencies or work of a colleague in psychology or another profession, they do this in an objective and respectful manner.

1. We note also that much water passed under the bridge between the notification on 30 April 2021, the imposition of the s 156 conditions on 27 September 2021, and the imposition of the s 178 Conditions by the Board in November 2022. In November 2022, the Board had before it many further examples of Mr Fletcher's inappropriate communication in response to issues under the National Law and of his lack of insight as to the concerns that had been raised.[37]
2. We have considered afresh the issues that were argued by Mr Fletcher. We find without hesitation that there is no merit in his arguments as to the lawfulness of the Board's decision to impose the s 178 conditions.
3. On reviewing the entirety of the documentary and oral evidence, we reject any suggestion that Ms Magua acted with malice or otherwise improperly when she made a notification to the Board. There was, on the evidence, a proper basis for that notification.
4. We reject any suggestion that Ms Rayment acted with malice or otherwise improperly in providing her expert opinions concerning the matter. Her opinions were reasonably open on the evidence and indeed were in many respects inevitable.
5. We find ourselves in agreement with the views of the previous Tribunal expressed in its decision dated 26 July 2022. We consider it appropriate to adopt the findings of that Tribunal[38] as we are entitled to do under s 11 of the Health Practitioner Act. We would reach the same conclusions on our own review of the evidence before us.
6. The evidence before the Board when it imposed the s 178 conditions was extensive and compelling. The Board relied significantly on the two reports of Ms Rayment. Those reports were critical of Mr Fletcher's practice in a number of areas, particularly with respect to his client AB.
7. In our view, the Board was fully entitled, on the evidence before it, to hold the concerns that it expressed in its letter dated 18 November 2022.[39] It was entitled to form the reasonable belief that Mr Fletcher's practice of the profession was, or might be, unsatisfactory. It was entitled to consider that the imposition of conditions was both appropriate and necessary.
8. We have no doubt that the Board honestly and reasonably formed such a belief and acted in accordance with its proper statutory role. There is no basis in the evidence to suggest that the Board acted maliciously or for any improper purpose. There is no basis in the evidence to suggest that the Board in any sense attempted to conceal child abuse.
9. Indeed, the various suggestions of impropriety made by Mr Fletcher against DCP, Ms Rayment, and the Board/AHPRA are, as the Board submitted, scandalous. There is no credible evidence to support such suggestions. The evidence of Ms Magua clearly outlined the valid bases for concern as to the safety of the children. At all relevant times the concerns of the Department were supported by orders of the Youth Court, confirming the need for removal and culminating in 12-month orders.
10. Mr Fletcher may have different and entrenched views[40] as to what is in the best interests of children, but the fact that he thinks differently does not justify the making of scandalous and unsupported assertions. It does not justify claims that others must have acted maliciously or for an improper purpose.
11. Mr Fletcher was entitled to express his views as to what he considered to be in the best interests of the children and his client. He was required to do so appropriately and professionally.
12. The Board did not take action against Mr Fletcher in November 2022 because he provided information under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. It took action for a number of reasons which are set out in the Board's letter. They relate primarily to concerns about a perceived failure to act in AB's best interests and about a number of other concerns as to how Mr Fletcher practised the profession. Insofar as the Board considered his communications, the Board had before it countless examples of unethical conduct arising from communications that were not addressed to DCP and did not in any relevant sense relate to the provision of information to that Department. The suggestion that the Board imposed the s 178 Conditions on the ground, or substantially on the ground, that he had provided information under the Children and Young Peoples (Safety) Act 2017 has no merit_._ This was not a situation which attracted in any way the provisions of s 165 of that Act.
13. There is no merit in the suggestion that the s 178 conditions were imposed unlawfully.
14. It remains for the Tribunal to consider whether it holds the requisite belief under s 178 and, if so what (if any) action should be taken.
15. On the whole of the evidence before us, we do hold the belief (which we consider to be reasonable) that the way in which Mr Fletcher practises the health profession is, or may be, unsatisfactory.
16. Our reasons for this belief may be stated as follows.
17. The evidence suggests that Mr Fletcher failed to act in the best interests of his client AB. Her interests were to work together with DCP to achieve reunification with her children. By denigrating DCP to the client and advising her that the actions of DCP in removing her children constituted child abuse, it is likely that Mr Fletcher compromised her ability to work constructively with the Department.
18. Furthermore, Mr Fletcher's failure to collaborate with DCP by providing requested information concerning treatment was likely to also compromise the desired reunification process.
19. As the earlier Tribunal stated,[41]

The hostile style of Mr Fletcher's communication with the Department is inimical to the interests of his client. The content of his communications is strongly suggestive that his treatment of Ms AB, and possibly other clients, is not driven by and tailored to an assessment of her needs but by a narrowly-focussed approach responsive to his perception of the Department's motives and deficiencies."

20. There is no suggestion that Mr Fletcher has addressed this concern or modified his approach since the decision of the earlier Tribunal. He has continued to express the same views and to insist that any criticism of his manner of practice is invalid.
21. It is a concern that Mr Fletcher appears to have no insight into the above issues and can see nothing wrong with his conduct.
22. Ms Rayment has expressed a concern that Mr Fletcher was prepared to treat AB's former boyfriend without proper consideration of conflicts which might arise. Mr Fletcher's cavalier dismissal of this expressed concern again demonstrates a lack of insight as to potential risks to clients.
23. Mr Fletcher has repeatedly demonstrated the tendency to communicate within professional settings in a way that is disrespectful, demeaning and denigrating. His conduct does not meet the standards required by the Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics.
24. Ms Rayment has identified concerns about the quality of note-taking and the documentation of valid treatment plans.
25. All of these factors cause us to believe that Mr Fletcher practises in a way that is unsatisfactory (or which may be unsatisfactory). It causes us to conclude that remedial action is required. We do not overlook the statements of Mr Fletcher's supervisor[42] that he did not have any concerns about Mr Fletcher's practice as a psychologist. This endorsement, however, in no way dispels the serious concerns that have led to us forming the requisite belief. The supervisor's reports do not actively address our concerns in a meaningful way. Our concern as to Mr Fletcher's lack of insight on key issues remains.
26. We consider that the conditions imposed by the Board are both appropriate and necessary for the protection of the public.
27. We find that the decision of the Board was the correct and preferable decision and it is confirmed.

1. We have found that the s 178 conditions were lawfully imposed. Those conditions have been operative at all times since 18 November 2022. There has been no application for a stay under s 36 of the SACAT Act.
2. Despite regular follow-up by AHPRA, Mr Fletcher has at no time complied with the conditions or provided information as required by the conditions.
3. On 21 June 2023 AHPRA gave notice to Mr Fletcher that it was proposing to take action under s 178 to caution him for non-compliance with the conditions.[43] On 8 August 2023, after considering responses from Mr Fletcher, the Board formally cautioned Mr Fletcher as follows:

The Psychology Board of Australia cautions Mr James Fletcher for unprofessional Conduct by his failure to comply with the conditions imposed on his registration, specifically his failure to submit education and audit nomination by the requisite deadline.

4. Despite further follow-up from AHPRA, Mr Fletcher has continued to be in breach of the conditions. He has formally conceded to the Tribunal that he has not complied and confirmed this at the hearing. He has indicated that he does not intend to comply.[44]
5. We find that Mr Fletcher has contravened (and continues to contravene) the conditions of his registration.
6. Such contravention comes squarely within the definition of "unprofessional conduct" in s 5 of the National Law. Whether such contravention in the circumstances of this case also constitutes "professional misconduct" is a matter upon which we will hear submissions from the parties.
7. This matter will be listed for a further hearing at which we will hear submissions as to:

(a) Whether the proven contravention of the conditions constitutes "professional misconduct", and

(b) What sanctions should be imposed.

1. We agree with the Board's submission that a great deal of the material authored by Mr Fletcher is scandalous. We refer specifically to material which, without any evidential foundation, seeks to denigrate and demean DCP and its officers, Ms Rayment, the Board, AHPRA and its officers, this Tribunal, legal practitioners and members of the judiciary. Some of this material has inevitably been referred to in the course of oral evidence and in submissions made to the Tribunal orally and in writing. In a sense, the material is relevant, but only to confirm the inappropriateness of Mr Fletcher's professional communications and his failure to comply with the Code of Ethics. It is appropriate to take steps to prevent further publication or dissemination of such material.
2. In addition to the scandalous material, some material filed identifies clients of Mr Fletcher and reveals sensitive and confidential information about their health and personal affairs. That material should also be protected from further dissemination.
3. We direct that the transcript of the hearing and the material contained on the Tribunal file (save for this Statement of Reasons and any formal orders arising therefrom) may not be accessed by any member of the public other than the parties and their legal representatives without the written permission of a presidential or senior member of the Tribunal.
4. We note that the Tribunal has previously made an order prohibiting the publication of the names of, or any material tending to identify, any client or patient of Mr Fletcher who is referred to in material before the Tribunal or in evidence before the Tribunal. That order remains in force.

Orders as to the Appeal and Disciplinary proceedings

1. As to the appeal, the Tribunal orders that the decision subject to review is confirmed.
2. As to the disciplinary proceedings the Tribunal finds that Mr Fletcher has failed to comply with the conditions of his registration.
3. The Tribunal finds that this constitutes "unprofessional conduct" pursuant to the National Law. The Tribunal will hear submissions as to whether Mr Fletcher's conduct constitutes "professional misconduct".
4. A further hearing date will be set to hear such submissions and submissions as to appropriate disciplinary sanctions.

[1] The National Law is to be found in schedule 2 to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (the Health Practitioner Act).

[2] South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act) s 45.

[3] These are not the conditions that are the subject of the present appeal.

[4] B2: (Book of Documents) page 551; Fletcher v Psychology Board of Australia [2022] SACAT 81.

[5] B2 pages 554-564; Fletcher v Psychology Board of Australia [2022] SACAT 81, paras [20]-[80]. Original footnotes removed.

[6] B3 (Supplementary Book of Documents) page 818 in proceedings before this Tribunal.

[7] Whilst nothing turns on it, the last two sentences of this paragraph do not appear to be entirely accurate. Ms Magua's affidavit sworn 16 June 2022 sets out that the 12-month reunification order was made by the Youth Court on 17 March 2021. That was an order for the children to remain in Departmental care for 12 months whilst working towards possible reunification with the mother. All three parents (each separately represented) consented to this order, as did the independent children's representative. The children were under the care of the Department at all times during 2021. They were not living with the mother. The younger child was returned to the care of the mother in 2022. (Magua Affidavit paras 31-39, 44-45; B3 pages 824-827).

[17] B2 page 570 at 572; [2023] SASCA 36 at [6] and [18].

[21] Originally attached to this Statement of Reasons, but now published as Fletcher V Psychology Board of Australia; Psychology Board of Australia v Fletcher [2025] SACAT 97 (21 February 2025).

[23] The transcript for the second day is incorrectly dated "31 April 2025".

[24] Health Practitioner Act 2010 s 6.

[25] The responsible Tribunal in South Australia is SACAT -Health Practitioner Act s 6.

[37] Many of these examples are set out in the Board's outline of argument. Inappropriate and unsupported allegations were made and we do not repeat them here.

[38] Noting the corrections set out in footnote 7 above.

[40] Insofar as he makes the unqualified statement that "REMOVAL OF A PARENT FROM A CHILD IS AN ABUSE OF THAT CHILD" (see para 8 above: para 33 of the quoted passage), Mr Fletcher appears to have an entrenched view that is not reflected in the provisions of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. The legislation clearly contemplates that removal may in some circumstances be in a child's best interest.

[41] Fletcher v Psychology Board of Australia [2022] SACAT 81, at [73].

[44] See also Mr Fletcher's affidavit sworn 30 September 2024 paras 2 and 4: F1 pages 211-213.