Health Care Complaints Commission v Bello

Dr Bello

1. Dr Bello obtained his Doctor of Medicine from Far Eastern University in the Philippines in 1990. He was first registered in New South Wales as a medical practitioner in April 2004. From 2004 to 2019, he was employed by NSW Health as a full-time medical practitioner.
2. The conduct which has led to several of the Grounds in the Amended Complaint occurred on 4 November 2019 while Dr Bello was patient A's treating doctor during patient A's attendance at Fairfield Hospital, and their interaction on the following day.
3. After his interaction with Dr Bello, patient A attended at Kogarah Police Station on 5 November 2019 and made a statement.
4. On the next day, 6 November 2019, police officers executed a search warrant at Dr Bello's home. They found two bottles of liquid sex lubricant on the dresser table. They also found three vials of Golden Dragon anabolic steroids in the bedroom.
5. Two charges were laid against Dr Bello on the same day. Those charges are the subject of Complaint Two.
6. On 7 November a police officer made a complaint about Dr Bello to the HCCC. That complaint has led to this Inquiry.
7. On 8 November 2019 the HCCC made an own motion Complaint after becoming aware of patient A's allegations in a newspaper.
8. The Medical Council decided to convene proceedings pursuant to s150 of the National Law to determine whether action should be taken in relation to Dr Bello's registration for the protection of the health or safety of the public. On 22 November 2019 Dr Bello's registration was suspended.
9. The two charges the subject of Complaint Two were heard in the Local Court on 17 and 18 March 2021. On 31 May 2021 Dr Bello was convicted of both offences and sentenced to an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) for 18 months.
10. Dr Bello appealed from the convictions in the Local Court. On 14 December 2022 the District Court: 1. upheld the appeal from the conviction for sexually touching another person without consent. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Local Court was quashed. 2. upheld the appeal from the conviction for possessing a prohibited drug. Dr Bello was found guilty but dealt with pursuant to s 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW so that the charge was dismissed without conviction.
11. Dr Bello then sought a review of the s150 decision to suspend his registration. On 1 May 2023 the suspension was lifted and conditions were placed on Dr Bello's registration. Those conditions are set out in full in Annexure A to these Reasons.
12. Dr Bello has not practised medicine in Australia since the suspension of his registration in 2019. At the time of this hearing he was living in the Philippines and caring for his mother. He gave evidence before us by AVL.

The Complaints

1. The accounts of the events in Dr Bello's home on 5 November 2019 given by patient A and Dr Bello cannot be reconciled.
2. Patient A did not give evidence before us. The statement made by patient A to the police on 5 November 2019 and a transcript of his evidence in the Local Court when the charges laid against Dr Bello were heard are in evidence.
3. As we have said, Dr Bello did give evidence before us and he was cross examined. In addition the video taken while the police searched Dr Bello's home on 6 November 2019, the transcript of the Electronic Record of Interview with Suspected Person (ERISP) which occurred when the police questioned Dr Bello on 6 November 2019, the transcript of the evidence given by Dr Bello at the s 150 hearing and the transcript of the evidence given by Dr Bello in the Local Court were in evidence.
4. As conceded by the HCCC, in these circumstances the evidence of Dr Bello has far more weight than the evidence of patient A.
5. Patient A was 28 years old when he went to a Medical Centre in November 2019 for the treatment of symptoms while urinating. He was referred to the Emergency Department of Fairfield Hospital where he came under the care of Dr Bello.
6. It is common ground that patient A was in the hospital for several hours. Blood and urine tests and a CT scan were performed. The blood and urine tests did not disclose a cause for patient A's complaint of a burning sensation when urinating. The CT scan excluded the possibility of a kidney stone. Dr Bello suspected either a urinary tract infection or a sexually transmitted infection. Patient A was placed on an IV drip which contained antibiotics. There is no complaint made about Dr Bello's medical treatment of patient A in hospital.

Complaint One

1. Section 144(a) of the National Law says: "The following complaints may be made about a registered health practitioner: (a) a complaint the practitioner has, either in this jurisdiction or elsewhere, been convicted of or made the subject of a criminal finding for an offence."
2. Dr Bello was charged with the offence of possessing a prohibited drug, contrary to s 10 (1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) after the police found the anabolic steroids at his home. That section relevantly says: "(i) A person who has a prohibited drug in his or her possession is guilty of an offence. "
3. The outcome of the appeal to the District Court was that he was found guilty of that offence.
4. Dr Bello admits Complaint One.
5. We find Complaint One proven.

Complaint Two

1. Section 130 of the National Law relevantly provides: (1) A registered health practitioner … must, within 7 days after becoming aware that a relevant event has occurred in relation to the practitioner …, give the National Board established for the practitioner's … health profession written notice of the event. (3) In this section-- "relevant event" in relation to a registered health practitioner, means-- (a) the practitioner is charged with - (i) a scheduled medicine offence; or (ii) an offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more … (b) the practitioner is convicted of or is the subject of a finding of guilt for - (ii) an offence punishable by imprisonment, whether in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere; or
2. A scheduled medicine offence is relevantly defined in s 130 as: "scheduled medicine offence" means an offence against a law of a participating jurisdiction-- (a) if-- (i) the law regulates the authority of registered health practitioners … to administer, obtain, possess, prescribe, sell, supply or use scheduled medicines; and (ii) the offence relates to registered health practitioners … administering, obtaining, possessing, prescribing, selling, supplying or using scheduled medicines;
3. Section 139B(1)(b) of the National Law relevantly provides: "Unsatisfactory professional conduct" of a registered health practitioner includes each of the following … (b) A contravention by the practitioner (whether by act or omission) of a provision of this Law, or the regulations under this Law or under the NSW regulations, whether or not the practitioner has been prosecuted for or convicted of an offence in respect of the contravention.

Complaint Two Particular 1(a)

1. The HCCC says that Dr Bello is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct because he did not notify the National Board within seven days when he was charged with possessing a prohibited drug, being the vials of anabolic steroids.
2. Dr Bello was charged with that offence on 6 November 2019. He did not inform the National Board.
3. Dr Bello has admitted that the steroids were not prescribed to him and he knew that it was an offence to possess them. He said he obtained the vials from a friend at the gym. They are a Schedule 4 medication. Accordingly he committed a scheduled medical offence which is a "relevant event" in s 130 of the National Law and he should have notified the National Board within seven days.
4. Dr Bello admits Complaint Two Particular 1(a).
5. We find that Dr Bello's failure to notify the National Board is unsatisfactory professional conduct as set out in s 139B(1)(b).
6. We find Complaint Two Particular 1(a) proven.

Complaint Two Particular 1(b)

1. The HCCC says that Dr Bello is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct because he did not notify the National Board within seven days when he was charged with sexually touching another person without consent contrary to s 61KC(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
2. Dr Bello was charged with that offence on 6 November 2019. He did not inform the National Board.
3. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for five years. Accordingly the charge is a "relevant event" as defined in s 130 of the National Law and Dr Bello should have notified the National Board within seven days.
4. Dr Bello admits Complaint Two Particular 1(b).
5. We find that Dr Bello's failure to notify the National Board is unsatisfactory professional conduct as set out in s 139B(1)(b).
6. We find Complaint Two Particular 1(b) proven.

Complaint Two Particular 1(c)

1. The HCCC says that Dr Bello is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct because he did not notify the National Board within seven days when he was the subject of a finding of guilty in respect of the offence of sexually touching another person without consent contrary to s 61KC(a) of the Crimes Act.
2. Dr Bello was convicted of that offence on 12 July 2021 in the Local Court. He did not inform the National Board.
3. On appeal, the District Court set aside the conviction. We accept the submission made by counsel for the HCCC that this does not excuse Dr Bello from the obligation to have reported the conviction by 19 July 2019.
4. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for five years. Accordingly the conviction was a "relevant event" as defined in s 130 of the National Law and Dr Bello should have notified the National Board within seven days.
5. Dr Bello admits Complaint Two Particular 1(c).
6. We find that Dr Bello's failure to notify the National Board is unsatisfactory professional conduct as set out in s 139B(1)(b).
7. We find Complaint Two Particular 1(c) proven.

Complaint Three

1. The HCCC asserts that Dr Bello is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 139B(1)(I) of the National Law when he breached professional boundaries with patient A by engaging in the following inappropriate conduct: 1. During the evening of 4 November 2019 or during the early morning of 5 November 2019, at Fairfield Hospital Emergency Department he gave his personal mobile phone number and later, after finishing work, his home address to the patient. 2. On 5 November 2019, patient A attended at Dr Bello's home at the invitation of Dr Bello. 3. While patient A was at Dr Bello's home on 5 November 2019, Dr Bello masturbated patient A as patient A laid on Dr Bello's bed.

What is improper or unethical conduct?

1. Section 139B(1)(l) defines unsatisfactory professional conduct as including any improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice of medicine.
2. The words "improper" and "unethical" are not defined. They should be given their ordinary meaning (Health Care Complaints Commission v Daniel [2022] NSWCATOD 104 (at [16] - [18]).
3. The relevant ordinary meanings of improper include "not in accordance with truth, fact reason or rule; abnormal, irregular; incorrect, inaccurate, erroneous, wrong" (Parker v Comptroller of Customs ([2009] HCA 7). If Dr Bello's conduct was not in conformity with standards of professional conduct and practice it may be regarded as improper (R v Byrnes (1995) 183 CLR 501 at 514-515).
4. Unethical conduct is arguably a more serious matter than improper conduct. "Unethical" is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as meaning immoral or contrary to moral precepts and, secondly, as relating to contravention of a professional code of conduct.

Complaint Three Particular 1(a) - gave his mobile number and home address to patient A

1. Dr Bello was patient A's treating doctor at Fairfield Hospital. Dr Bello admits that he gave his mobile number to the patient as he was being discharged.
2. In the ERISP, Dr Bello told the police that patient A had asked for his mobile number and "nonchalantly I really did just, "O.K. this is my number". He said he had given patient A his number because they had a rapport.
3. Dr Bello, at the s 150 hearing, said that around the time that patient A was being discharged, patient A had asked him for his mobile number and, due to a "mental lapse" he gave it to him.
4. In the Local Court it was the evidence of Dr Bello that patient A said "Doctor, maybe can we have coffee some other time? Can I have your number?" Dr Bello said he had given patient A his number because they had developed some sort of connection" and "he seemed to be a nice person". When Dr Bello was asked "Were you interested in him?" he replied "Maybe sort of".
5. When he gave evidence before us Dr Bello said that, just before he gave his number to patient A, the patient had asked whether they could be friends.
6. The call history from patient A's mobile phone shows at 10:12 pm, while patient A was in hospital, a call was made from patient A's mobile phone number to Dr Bello's mobile phone.
7. Patient A called Dr Bello's mobile in the morning on the next day, 5 November 2019. They had several conversations by phone and by text in which they arranged to meet later that day. There is in evidence the text messages from Dr Bello to patient A in which he gave patient A his home address and then said "See you"… "Am almost home" … "See you".

Complaint Three Particular 1(a) - finding

1. We find that on 4 - 5 November 2019 Dr Bello gave his personal mobile phone number and later, after finishing work, his home address to patient A.
2. Dr Bello admits that doing so was "improper" and "unethical".
3. We consider that Dr Bello's conduct was clearly improper and unethical, bearing in mind that Dr Bello had a sexual interest in patient A, as we discuss in more detail later in these Reasons. It was not in conformity with standards of professional conduct as it was a breach of professional boundaries as set out 8.2 in the Medical Board of Australia's publication: Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia.
4. We find Dr Bello guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Complaint Three Particular 1(a).

Complaint Three Particular 1(b) - inviting patient A to his home

1. Dr Bello has said on a number of occasions that he had not intended to meet with patient A at his home but had intended to walk with him to a café for lunch. However patient A had had difficulty parking so he had gone downstairs to direct patient A to drive his car into his garage. He then realised he had to go back upstairs to turn off the stove and get his wallet and patient A asked whether he could go with him and use the toilet.
2. In cross examination before us Dr Bello conceded that by giving patient A his home address, he was inviting patient A to his home, but said he had done it because patient A was persistent.
3. Dr Bello admits Complaint Three Particular 1 (b).
4. We are satisfied that the evidence establishes that by giving patient A his home address and then assisting patient A to park his car in his garage and then walking upstairs with patient A into his unit, patient A attended at Dr Bello's home at the invitation of Dr Bello who at the time believed that the patient wanted something personal or sexual. We have discussed this further below.
5. Again, this conduct breached professional boundaries and was improper and unethical.
6. We find Dr Bello guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Complaint Three Particular 1(b).

Complaint Three Particular 1(c) - masturbating patient A

1. Initially Dr Bello denied that any sexual activity occurred with patient A.
2. When the police came to his home on 6 November 2019, Dr Bello told them that he had sat next to patient A on the couch for about fifteen or twenty minutes during which he told patient A to take his medication and then patient A left.
3. In the ERISP Dr Bello conceded that patient A had lain down on his bed but denied that any sexual activity had occurred.
4. At the s 150 Dr Bello said he had physically examined patient A's lymph nodes in his groin and palpated his penis and his testicles.
5. In the Local Court Dr Bello said that they had both been sitting on the couch in the lounge room when patient A squeezed his own crotch with one hand and Dr Bello's thigh with the other and asked to be examined again. Dr Bello told him there was no need for another examination but patient A asked him to double check.
6. Patient A then took his shoes, pants and underwear off. Dr Bello said he thought that patient A "wanted to have a sexual activity" with him. Patient A took his hand and led him into the bedroom. Patient A lay on the bed and Dr Bello sat next to him and massaged the upper part of patient A's penis for a while. Patient A then saw a tube of lubricant on the bedside table and instructed Dr Bello to use it. Dr Bello said he put a little bit on the shaft of patient A's penis. Dr Bello said that at this stage he told patient A that he was not very comfortable with continuing and he stopped, got a towel, cleaned patient A's penis and went back to the lounge room and sat down. He said patient A came out of the bedroom and wiggled his penis in front of his face but then got dressed. After a short conversation, patient A gave him a hug and left.
7. Dr Bello admits that while patient A was at Dr Bello's home on 5 November 2019, he masturbated patient A as patient A laid on his bed.
8. Further Dr Bello was aware that his conduct was unethical. He told the Local Court that, at the time, he was scared and anxious because he knew he had crossed the ethical boundaries between a doctor and a patient and was worried that his registration might be revoked by the Medical Council for engaging in sexual activity with a patient.
9. We are satisfied that Dr Bello's conduct was clearly an improper and unethical breach of professional boundaries.
10. We find Dr Bello guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Complaint Three Particular 1(c).

Complaint Four

1. The HCCC asserts that Dr Bello is guilty of professional misconduct under s 139E of the National Law in that he has: 1. engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of his registration, and/or 2. engaged in more than one instance of unsatisfactory professional conduct that, when the instances are considered together, amount to conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration.
2. The conduct relied on is the conduct in Complaint Three.
3. In Chen v Health Care Complaints Commission (2017) 95 NSWLR 334 at [19]-[20], Basten JA (Leeming JA at [23] agreeing) said: "... The term ''professional misconduct" does not have a specific meaning; it is merely a category of "unsatisfactory professional conduct" which is sufficiently serious to justify suspension or cancellation. ... There is no category of unsatisfactory professional conduct which is not capable, depending on the circumstances, of giving rise to professional misconduct and hence engaging the power of either suspension or cancellation of registration. The only requirement is that it be "sufficiently serious" to justify such an order, a characterisation which must depend upon an evaluative judgment made by the Tribunal."
4. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Gleeson CJ, Meagher and Handley JJA) at [638] said in relation to professional misconduct: "The gravity of professional misconduct is not to be measured by reference to the worst cases, but by the extent to which it departs from the proper standards."
5. In assessing the seriousness of the conduct we take into account that we are of the view that the evidence establishes that Dr Bello had formed a sexual interest in patient A commencing at the time he treated patient A in the hospital.
6. We have already referred to this issue in our consideration of Complaint Three Particular 1. We have already recounted how Dr Bello said he gave patient A his mobile number because he felt they had a rapport, Dr Bello said he was "sort of" interested in patient A and patient A had asked to be friends. Dr Bello told us that at the hospital there had been a bit of attraction.
7. When they next met on 5 November 2019, after patient A had driven to Dr Bello's home, Dr Bello said that after he got into patient A's car, patient A had squeezed his thigh. Dr Bello concluded that patient A wanted something personal or sexual. When he was asked "Did you like that idea?" he replied "Well, I'm only human, so yeah". He said he was flattered and aroused sexually. He felt that patient A was starting to seduce him.
8. It is accordingly clear that from the time Dr Bello gave his telephone number to patient A while patient A was his patient, he should have been aware that he should respect the professional boundaries between doctor and patient. Instead he gave his mobile number and then his address to patient A. He then led patient A upstairs when he believed from patient A's conduct in the car that there was a sexual attraction between them.
9. Patient A was a vulnerable patient who had received treatment in hospital from Dr Bello for a possible sexually transmitted infection.
10. Dr Bello's conduct with patient A was an exploitation of the power imbalance between them and a significant departure from accepted professional and ethical standards. It is sufficiently serious to justify suspension or cancellation of his registration. In arriving at this finding we take into account the following matters as indicators of the serious nature of that conduct, as set out in "Guidelines: Sexual Boundaries in the doctor-patient relationship" published by the Medical Board of Australia on 12 December 2018: 1.1 Trust Trust in the relationship between doctors and patients is a cornerstone of good medical practice. Sexual misconduct is a serious abuse of that trust. Patients have a right to feel safe when they are consulting a doctor. Patients need to trust that their doctor will act in their best interests, treat them professionally, not breach their privacy and never take advantage of them. Exploitation of the doctor-patient relationship undermines the trust that patients have in their doctors and the community has in the profession. It can cause profound psychological harm to patients and compromise their medical care. 2. Why breaching boundaries is unethical and harmful Doctors are expected to act in their patient's best interests and not use their position of power and trust to exploit patients physically, sexually, emotionally or psychologically. Breaching sexual boundaries is always unethical and usually harmful for many reasons including: Power imbalance: The doctor-patient relationship is inherently unequal. The patient is often vulnerable and in some clinical situations may depend emotionally on the doctor. To receive healthcare, patients are required to reveal information that they would not reveal to anyone else and may need to allow a doctor to conduct a physical examination. A breach of sexual boundaries in the doctor-patient relationship exploits this power imbalance. Trust: Patients place trust in their doctor. They have a right to expect that examinations and treatment will only be undertaken in their best interests and never for an ulterior, sexual motive. Safety: Patients subjected to sexual behaviour from their doctor may suffer emotional and physical harm. Quality: A doctor who sexualises patients is likely to lose the independence and objectivity needed to provide them with good quality healthcare. Public confidence: Members of the community should never be deterred from seeking medical care, permitting intimate examinations or sharing deeply personal information, because they fear potential abuse.
11. We find Dr Bello is guilty of professional misconduct.

Protective Orders

1. The HCCC seeks orders cancelling Dr Bello's registration and prohibiting him from reapplying for registration for three years.
2. Dr Bello seeks orders permitting him to practise with the same conditions on his registration as were imposed on 1 May 2023 after the s150A hearing.
3. We have found Dr Bello guilty of professional misconduct and therefore the range of protective orders which can be made includes suspension or cancellation of his registration (s 149C(1)(b) of the National Law).
4. However the fact that we have found that Dr Bello's conduct was of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of his registration does not mean it must be suspended or cancelled.
5. The purpose of disciplinary orders is protective rather than punitive. (Litchfield, supra at 637).
6. The protection of the health and safety of the public is a guiding principle of the national registration scheme (s 3A of the National Law) and, in making our decision, must be the paramount consideration (s 3B of the National Law).
7. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [35] the Court held: The objective of protecting the health and safety of the public is not confined to protecting the patients or potential patients of a particular practitioner from the continuing risk of his or her malpractice or incompetence. It includes protecting the public from the similar misconduct or incompetence of other practitioners and upholding public confidence in the standards of the profession. That objective is achieved by setting and maintaining those standards and, where appropriate, by cancelling the registration of practitioners who are not competent or otherwise not fit to practise, including those who have been guilty of serious misconduct. Denouncing such misconduct operates both as a deterrent to the individual concerned, as well as to the general body of practitioners. It also maintains public confidence by signalling that those whose conduct does not meet the required standards will not be permitted to practise.
8. In Director-General, Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care v Lambert [2009] NSWCA 102 at [83] the Court held: As is well-established in the disciplinary jurisdiction generally, including with respect to legal and medical practitioners, the specific purpose for which orders are made is protective in the public interest and is not punitive with respect to the individual … That is not to deny that such orders may be punitive in effect…Nor does it necessarily follow that punitive effects may not be relevant in formulating a protective order. … Further, the punitive effects may be directly relevant to the need for protection. Thus, in a particular case, there may be a factual finding that the harrowing experience of disciplinary proceedings, together with the real threat of loss of a livelihood may have opened the eyes of the individual concerned to the seriousness of his or her conduct, so as to diminish significantly the likelihood of its repetition. Often such a finding will be accompanied by a finding that the person concerned has achieved a level of insight into his or her own character or misconduct, which did not previously exist.
9. As to the setting of a period in which an application for re-registration is prohibited, the Tribunal in Health Care Complaints Commission v Luque [2019] NSWCATOD 129 noted at [94]: The setting of a non-review period is not to punish the practitioner but to protect the public. NSW Court of Appeal jurisprudence has indicated that the fixing of a period of non-review has a 'twofold operation' in that it firstly indicates a minimum period within which the Tribunal considers the person should not be able to practise their profession, thus serving both an individual and general deterrence purpose by sending a message to the practitioner, the public and the profession about professional standards and the seriousness of the breach; and secondly it holds open to the practitioner the possibility of return to the profession at a later time: Chen v HCCC [2017] NSWCA 186; HCCC v Do [2014] NSWCA 307.
10. However, any protective orders made by the Tribunal should not result in "more serious consequences for the practitioner than is reasonably necessary in execution of the protective purpose of the legislation" (NSW Bar Association v Meakes [2006] NSWCA 340 at [114]).
11. In determining the appropriate protective Orders we have taken the following matters into account: 1. Our findings as to the seriousness of Dr Bello's conduct in relation to his conduct in relation to patient A when we determined Complaints Three and Four. 2. On the one hand this is the only Complaint which has been made against Dr Bello. On the other hand, Dr Bello conceded that he knew, at the time, that the ethical Rules governing the practice of medicine prohibited a sexual relationship with a patient. Despite this knowledge he did not proactively end his engagement with patient A, instead he allowed their relationship to continue and develop over many hours - he could have refused to give patient A his mobile number at a time when he thought they had a "connection", he could have refused to give patient A his home address and declined to meet him during the morning of 5 November 2019, he could have refused to let patient A come upstairs to his home and, lastly, he could have refused to take part in any sexual activity with patient A. 3. Patient A was a vulnerable patient who had received treatment in hospital from Dr Bello for a possible sexually transmitted infection. 4. A boundary violation is an abuse of the doctor-patient relationship. It undermines the trust and confidence of patients in their doctors and of the community in the medical profession and can cause significant and lasting harm to a patient. 5. Other practitioners are entitled to see the standards of their profession upheld. 6. We do not consider that Dr Bello has shown any meaningful insight into the harm his behaviour could cause to a person in the position of patient A, nor has he shown any remorse. We accept the submission made by counsel for the HCCC that Dr Bello's explanation of the events often sought to cast blame on the patient and infer that he, Dr Bello, had been powerless to resist the advances made by patient A. Dr Bello used language such as the patient being "very persistent", and "insistent" and "that things went very fast". He described patient A as "instructing" him during the incident in the bedroom. When he was asked what effect he thought his behaviour would have had on patient A, he replied that probably patient A felt the same as he did. He then said it had been his bad decision but his kindness had been abused. We consider that Dr Bello's lack of insight poses a significant risk of harm to the health and safety of the public. 1. Our orders must have an element of deterrence so that other health practitioners will be aware of the consequences of inappropriate behaviour in their professional and private lives. 2. Dr Bello did attend a psychologist as a consequence of the Local Court ICO and he found this helpful. On 24 March 2023 he obtained a CPD Certificate of Completion for a course titled "How to ensure a similar mistake or misconduct will not be repeated in the future" after attending online for 1.5 hours. He has not undergone any counselling or done any courses since then. 3. Dr Bello relies on three character references prepared in April 2023. A nurse at Camden Hospital who has known him for 20 years said that he was a much-loved doctor when he worked at that hospital. She considers him to be a kind, caring, generous man with strong family ties and always ready to be a friend to people. A friend who had then known Dr Bello for three years, knew him to be a good, hard-working man who gave 100% and was highly respected in the Philippine community. Another friend, who has known Dr Bello since 2004, said that he is dedicated, kind and professional and she has never doubted his integrity as a doctor who puts his patients first. She thinks Dr Bello is sometimes too caring which has obviously caused him to get into trouble. 1. Dr Bello would like to return to work as a doctor in Australia and expressed an interest in working as a general practitioner in areas of need in rural or regional NSW. However he has conceded that he is not GP trained so he would have to first undergo this training. In addition, counsel for Dr Bello did not explain how Dr Bello could comply with the proposed conditions on his registration if he was working remotely.
12. Taking into account the need for the protection of the health and safety of the public, the seriousness of the conduct, the need for general deterrence, maintenance of confidence in the medical profession and the necessity to give Dr Bello an opportunity to complete the journey into gaining full insight, we have decided to cancel his registration.
13. Cancellation of Dr Bello's registration means that, at the expiration of the period of cancellation, Dr Bello must re-apply for registration and, inter alia, show that he has addressed the issues giving rise to the cancellation and should be permitted to resume practice. The period of cancellation also must be an appropriate consequence for his behaviour.
14. Pursuant to s 149C(7) of the National Law, Dr Bello may not apply for a review of the Order cancelling his registration for a period of 18 months from the date of this decision.

Costs

1. Dr Bello is to pay the costs of the HCCC for the whole of the proceedings as costs should follow the event.

Orders

1. We make the following Orders: 1. Pursuant to s 149C(1)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), Dr Bello's registration as a medical practitioner is cancelled. 2. Pursuant to s 149C(7) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), Dr Bello may not apply for a review of Order (1) for a period of eighteen months from the date of this decision. 3. Dr Bello to pay the costs of the Health Care Complaints Commission for the whole of the proceedings.
2. Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) the publication by any person or entity of the name of the person set out in the Schedule to the Application (described as patient A in these Reasons) is prohibited.

Annexure A (26040, pdf) I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 17 September 2024