Health Care Complaints Commission v Pritchard [2026] NSWCATOD 10;

1. The grounds for the Commission's Application are that the Respondent has been convicted of a criminal offence in NSW.
2. The complaint named the victim of the subject criminal offence committed by the Respondent, but an order under s 64, as sought in paragraph 1 of the Application, was made by the Tribunal on 30 July 2025.
3. We will, therefore, refer to that victim in these Reasons as "Person A", and will also take care in recounting the facts of this matter so as not to provide any information that would enable him/her to be identified.
4. The Commission's application was supported by a formal Complaint, the material parts of which stated that the Respondent was first registered as a Nurse under the National Law after completing a Bachelor of Nursing at the University of Wollongong in 2013; was at all relevant times employed as a registered nurse at Goulburn Base Hospital; fired a rifle at a house in April 2013, while Person A was inside; and was convicted of a criminal offence in NSW on 13 June 2024 at Goulburn District Court.
5. He served a term of eighteen months in prison and is presently on parole.
6. The Respondent filed a Reply on 15 September 2025 (Ex H3), in which he said, among other things:

"... [It] is obvious that I cannot disagree with your application request to have my registration cancelled with a non-review period of twelve months.

...

In relation to the Commission's application for me to pay its costs under clause 13 of Schedule 5B of the National Law, as agreed or assessed, I find myself in a position of living week to week on (sic) a casual working labourer with uncertain hours or on Jobseeker payment of less than $800 per fortnight. I feel that I was justly convicted and sentenced for the crime I committed.

...

I understand that I have brought the nursing profession into disrepute by my offending, but honestly feel that my offending had nothing to do with or effected (sic) my nursing practice.

At the time of my incarceration and presently [I] continue to attend counselling and now have a strong foundation in my faith and community and hope to redeem myself. I cannot at this time afford my own legal representation and as such the Commission's costs. If the Tribunal decides that I am to pay costs I would as (sic) that they'd be as minimal as possible or able to be paid over time."

1. When the present matter came on for hearing on 4 November 2025, Pritchard appeared for himself, and agreed to be cross-examined. He tendered no evidence, and made no objection to the evidence tendered and relied upon by the Commission, namely:

(1) A 438 page bundle of material (Ex H1), which includes documents relevant to the criminal proceedings and also the Code of Conduct for Nurses (pp 418-36);

(2) An evidentiary certificate from "Ahpra & National Boards", dated 28 October 2025 (Ex H2);

(3) The Respondent's Reply of 15 September 2025 (to which we have already referred - Ex H3).

1. Exhibit H2 confirms that Pritchard was registered from 10 January 2014 to 11 September 2023, and then suspended. It notes that conditions were imposed on his registration from 14 July 2017 to 2 February 2018.
2. The Commission also helpfully provided a detailed Chronology of events, and comprehensive written submissions.
3. In his sworn oral evidence, Pritchard adhered to his Reply, and confirmed his acceptance, in full, of the Complaint.

1. Pritchard was born in 1971; he has been, but is no longer, married, and has two children.
2. He was the middle child of three in "a complex family dynamic", and "developed significant behavioural issues in childhood, particularly around anger management" (see Spatz report at Ex H1, pp 270-1, pars 4-7).
3. He dropped out of school just prior to sitting his Higher School Certificate (par 8), and held various jobs, despite struggling "to navigate situations of perceived injustice" (par 9), before entering the security sector in 2001, and then commencing nursing studies in 2011 (par 10). He commenced work as a mental health nurse at Shellharbour Hospital.
4. In June 2017, following an incident with a patient, he was suspended, pending an investigation, and a s 150 hearing was convened, reporting on 14 July 2017, in respect of which the Applicant's Chronology records:

"The s 150 delegates were concerned that the practitioner had minimal awareness regarding his professional practice and failed to uphold policies regarding patient restraint and the de-escalation of distressed behaviours. They were also concerned that he appeared to take little responsibility for his own continuing professional development and that he was unable to regulate his emotional responses in the workplace. It was also noted that the practitioner did not demonstrate a strong ability to reflect on his practice" (see also Ex H1, pp 360-8).

1. Conditions were imposed on his registration, and a Performance Assessment was ordered. The Chronology records, in an entry dated simply December 2017, in respect of that Assessment:

"It was found that the practitioner had reflected on the issues and the incident, and had completed some education. He demonstrated knowledge and skills in de-escalation and communication and was able to identify risk to staff and patient safety.

It was recommended that the practitioner undertake complete education programs on medication knowledge, vicarious trauma and mental status examinations. It also recommended that the practitioner attend monthly clinical supervision with a senior nurse for 12 months, and to also attend a minimum of 3 counselling sessions."

1. Pritchard subsequently lost his job at Shellharbour (Ex H1, p 248, par 5), and relocated to Goulburn, where he worked in various non-nursing jobs from 2018 to 2021, before returning to general nursing at Goulburn Base Hospital. During a construction apprenticeship with Roads and Maritime Services, he "encountered difficulties when managers treated him with a lack of respect" (Spatz, par 10).
2. He spent three years in a general nursing position in Goulburn, despite "ongoing frustrations with systemic injustices in the health care system" (par 11).
3. Relevantly (in the context of his offending), Pritchard had obtained in 2016 a NSW Firearms Licence, which was renewed in 2020 (Ex H1, p 248, par 6). He appears to have kept and used - for hunting and stock/pest control purposes (par 7-8) - three firearms.
4. Also relevant is his history of problems with depression, alcohol, and anger management, resulting in (1) the prescription of anti-depressants (in 1989) and other medications (in 2001), to some of which medications he reacted badly (Ex H1, p 274, par [21]), and (2) his consulting psychologists and psychiatrists, at various times, for "explosive anger disorder", and "sexual addiction".
5. He was known by workmates (and others) to have had anger management issues prior to 2017 (eg, p 398). His situation and mood were frequently aggravated by alcohol. (In a Record of Interview on 24 August 2023, he told police he had given up alcohol in early-mid June 2023 - Ex H1, p 186, Q812 and Q813).
6. The relevant shot-firing incident occurred on the night of 25 April 2023, but was not reported to police until 24 August 2023, at which point he was arrested and charged, his firearms were seized, and his firearms licence suspended/ revoked.
7. He remained in custody, bail refused, the Nursing and Midwifery Council held a s 150 hearing on 11 September 2023, in his absence, and he resigned from his job in the Rehabilitation ward of Goulburn Base Hospital, effective 25 September 2023 (p 404).
8. He was served with a "Notice of Complaint", by the HCCC, on 16 November 2023 (under s 28 - see pp 400-2), to which he delayed responding, pending his criminal proceedings.
9. The criminal matter came before Goulburn District Court on 13 June 2024.
10. Pritchard's legal representatives negotiated a "plea deal" (p 310, lines 34-5), which resulted in his pleading guilty to the charge of "fire firearm" at a "dwelling-house with reckless disregard for the safety of any person" (Ex H1, pp 261-3). That offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, and attracts a standard non-parole period of 5 years (p 265, par 9).
11. The sentencing judge (Baly DCJ) had the benefit of agreed facts, a comprehensive report from forensic psychologist, Anica Spatz (pp 268-88), and references, and this Tribunal had the benefit also of all that material.
12. Pritchard wrote to the sentencing judge (pp 297-9), expressing deep sorrow for the offence, and frustration that remedial strategies he had identified were not available to him in prison (see transcript of sentencing hearing, pp 309-16, and the judge's Remarks on Sentence at pp 317-30).
13. He was sentenced on 13 June 2024 to three years imprisonment, backdated to his arrest on 24 August 2023, with a non-parole period of 18 months (p 305).
14. A month after sentencing (ie, on 14 July 2024), Pritchard replied to the s 28 letter of 16 November 2023 (pp 403-4), reporting the sentencing outcome, demonstrating insight into his offending, and taking full responsibility for the harm caused. He commented (p 404):

"I would like to stress that with all of the issues that were impacting on my life at the time of the incident, my practice as a nurse had not been effected (sic) in any negative manner. This can be evidenced by the acceptance of my resignation from my position at Goulburn Base Hospital rather than the proposed termination of employment....

As such I do not feel it necessary that HCCC to take part in this matter other than to recognise and record the complaint and allow the matter to be handled in due course by the NSW NMC and AHPRA when I make submissions to both entities once released from prison."

1. On 21 November 2024 (pp 406-9), the Commission invited Pritchard to make submissions on its decision to proceed against him. He replied by email on 5 March 2025 (p 410) including:

"After lengthy consideration and taking into account the gravity of my situation I feel that I must trust in God and the system which is in place to address the complaint against me. There could be an argument put forward by me that... I made more than one enormous error in judgment. Consuming excessive amounts of alcohol and handling a firearm while intoxicated with extremely high levels of stress and the inability to regulate my emotions have not only caused the... likely end of my nursing career along with the many flow on effects from my offence. Although these things are true there can never be an argument or excuse for my actions. All I can say in my defence is that I have been and will be addressing the issue that led up to the events of my offence. I believe and have been told by more than one of my nursing colleagues that despite my flaws I am a good nurse and I feel that with the therapy I have in place I will be able to better regulate my emotions. My time in prison has given me a new perspective of not only myself but life and relationships across my life with nursing being just one of them. I feel that with a little more time utilising my therapy and adhering to any suspension and conditions place (sic) on my registration by the Nursing and Midwifery Board that I could still be of value to the community and be a better nurse."

1. Pritchard was released on parole on 23 February 2025, and at the time of our hearing, was living with his mother (see her reference at pages 289-90), collecting "job seeker" benefits, and doing "odd jobs".
2. In his Reply, he said:

"As my sexual addiction has been brought to light in one of the complaints to the HCCC, I wish to also put it into context. It has been described to me as a seeking of validation due to experiences in my early and subsequent life, not a search for sex or another partner. Unfortunately this mixed with alcohol has led to a destructive pathway in my life and relationships.

During my incarceration I was able to reflect... on the causative factors in my at times dysfunctional life, in particular my alcohol, anger and sexual disorders. Since my release in February 2025 I have in conjunction with my support network, Church community and sexual assault counsellor been able to positively address these issues. I have also become more emotionally regulated since going to prison and since my release. Returning to my Christian faith has also had a massive impact on my life, I am more at peace now than I have ever been in my life since asking for forgiveness from those I have wronged either face to face or through the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I would like to state that for all of the problems in my personal life my nursing practice since beginning to work on the Rehabilitation ward at Goulburn Base Hospital had not been adversely impacted but only improved. I was mentored by several experienced and understanding nurses and gained a whole new set of skills in an environment much less stressful and emotionally demanding than I encountered working in a mental health setting, particularly the vicarious trauma I suffered. I have been told that I was a well liked person and nurse who was caring and supportive to both patients and staff and a good mentor. On one occasion I was blessed to be nominated for a preceptors award by a nursing student, this is one of my nursing career highlights."

1. In her sentencing report, Ms Spatz describes Pritchard as "open" and "disinhibited" in approaching the assessment tests she administered (p 270, par 2), and "average" in cognition (par 3).
2. Ms Spatz summarised (par 12, p 272):

"Mr Pritchard has obtained a wide range of vocational skills and experiences, which make him employable in a range of industries. However, his criminal record and current incarceration will reduce these opportunities, particularly any nursing positions."

1. She noted a history of "health challenges" - type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and blood pressure, coupled with a history of head injuries (pars 13-14).
2. She then dealt at length with various aspects of his mental health (pars 16-29, pp 273-5) before his relationship history - she notes (par 34, p 276):

"Infidelity is a big issue in his life that he is ashamed of. Mr Pritchard advised that he has always been sexually promiscuous and had poor boundaries. His relationships and casual encounters always included a strong need for intimacy to meet his desires and validate him".

1. Prior to the subject offending, Pritchard had no criminal history, and, once incarcerated, he turned to religion, and the seeking of professional medical help (pars 37-40), remaining "steadfast in his efforts to confront his past, find redemption and ultimately reintegrate into society as a rehabilitated individual" (par 39).
2. Ms Spatz noted (par 45, p 278) that he displayed regret and disbelief in regard to his offending, with a degree of "dissociation from his actions, likely influenced by his intoxication and emotional state at the time".
3. Her report goes on to analyse the results of the tests she administered:

(a) She excluded "ADHD" as a possible cause of his explosive anger issues (par 47);

(b) She opined that he had an alcohol use disorder at the time of offending (par 49);

(c) He exhibited mild levels of anxiety "without panic symptoms" or a significant impact on his mental health (par 50); and

(d) He also exhibited "mild depressive symptoms", below the diagnostic criteria of a depressive disorder (par 51), leading her to conclude (pars 52 and 56, p 280):

(1) That he did not have an anxiety or depressive disorder but may have a mental health problem associated with "mild anxiety and depressive symptoms" and

(2) That he is a "highly impulsive person", more impulsive than ninety five percent of adults, warranting the diagnosis of "an associated mental health condition".

1. In the "Conclusion and Opinion" section of her report (pars 57-63), Ms Spatz confirmed Pritchard's prior diagnosis of "intermittent explosive disorder". She acknowledged his "underlying feelings of inadequacy and insecurity, driving maladaptive coping mechanisms such as alcohol use and sexual promiscuity", and opined that he has "an alcohol use disorder" which would have led to "poor problem-solving capabilities and heightened impulsivity" at the time of his offending, lowering his ability to judge the consequences of his actions (see her detailed conclusions in pars 61 and 62 on page 282, and note her concern that he had access to firearms, and his need for regular ongoing psychological treatment).
2. She went on to detail a "Treatment Plan" (pp 283-4), which included his "rejoining the workforce as soon as possible" (par 12), and not having "access to firearms upon his return to the community" (par 13). It was her expectation (p 284) that:

"By following [that plan, his] mental health should improve, which will have a positive effect on his risk of reoffending".

1. Baly DCJ had before her quite a number of references, including that given by Pritchard's mother (pp 289-96). (He later put to us two more references (pp 413-14)).
2. In her sentencing remarks (pp 317-30), the key points of which are collected in the Commission's submissions (at 12), Her Honour described the Respondent's offence as "unsophisticated, .... largely impulsive; ... and with little or no planning" (par 27), and opined (par 28) that "the degree of recklessness... was high".
3. Her Honour further commented (par 30) that the offence was "isolated", in the sense that the offender had never previously committed such an offence, "or indeed any offence that is known", and "(par 35) that the offence "was a reasonably serious example of an offence of its kind".
4. Her Honour noted (par 38) that Pritchard presented a "strong subjective case" - he had no prior convictions and the testimonials before her indicated that his offending conduct was "entirely out of character". She paid close attention to Ms Spatz's report, quoting several paragraphs to which we have referred, and then said (par 48):

"It must be accepted that Mr Pritchard is suffering from some underlying mental health issues that were exacerbated at the time of the offending. I do accept that his mental health condition is causally linked to the offending. While the use of alcohol to the point of intoxication is certainly not in and of itself a mitigating factor, it certainly played a significant part in this offending. It must be accepted in light of the unchallenged evidence of Ms Spatz that the offender's moral culpability is to be reduced on account of the causally linked mental health diagnosis. That diminution in moral culpability is accepted, and moral culpability will be reduced to some extent."

1. Her Honour accepted Pritchard's remorse (pars 53-55) and that "He has shown quite a high degree of insight into his own rehabilitative needs and the fact that he should no longer have access to firearms" (par 56).
2. He Honour structured the sentence with a fifty percent parole period (eighteen months of a three year sentence), to facilitate Pritchard's access to care and therapy as part of his rehabilitation.
3. The Tribunal is not convinced that he is presently seeking enough professional help to supplement his "faith journey", but we acknowledge that the cost of such help presents a difficulty for him, although he appeared to accept that more is necessary.
4. The Tribunal encouraged him to pay closer attention to Ms Spatz's detailed treatment plan as everyone involved in the hearing realises that he is indeed "on a long journey".

1. The Respondent does not dispute the Complaint, the proposed cancellation of his registration, or the imposition of a twelve month restriction period, and the Tribunal is "comfortably satisfied" that he has indeed been "convicted" of an "offence".
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the Complaint proved, and must turn its attention to the sanctions/orders to be imposed, in order to ensure the protection of the public, to deter others from similar conduct, and to maintain the standards of the nursing profession.
3. The principles the Tribunal must apply are well-established. They are set out in the Commission's written submissions (pars 19-25), and the Respondent did not quibble with them. See, especially, Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297; (1997) 41 NSWLR 630, at 637, and Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307, at [35].
4. As the HCCC submissions acknowledge (par 24), this Tribunal has powers to suspend or cancel the Respondent's registration, under s 149C(1)(c) of the National Law, because of his conviction for an offence, the circumstances of which render him "unfit in the public interest" to practise his profession as a nurse.
5. We are, again, "comfortably satisfied" that such criteria are established in the present case: see Health Care Complaints Commission v Morris [2022] NSWCATOD 120, at [83].
6. As made clear before Baly DCJ, Pritchard's conduct was grave and violent. It occurred while he was heavily intoxicated, and in the context of his long history of anger management issues for which he had received counselling.
7. In 2022, a psychiatrist had also diagnosed him with alcohol use disorder, and explosive anger disorder (Spatz, p 273, par 20), a diagnosis confirmed at the sentencing hearing.
8. He has failed to control angry impulses throughout his life, and, like Ms Spatz, this Panel has difficulty accepting that he could qualify for a firearms permit.
9. We acknowledge that Pritchard entered an early guilty plea, and expressed early remorse for his actions, but he had had anger management problems in the nursing workplace on at least 22 June 2017, placing patient safety at risk.
10. Given that the Respondent will remain on parole, and so still under the sentence of imprisonment, until 23 August 2026, the twelve month non-review period is appropriate.

1. As already noted, the Commission seeks an order for its costs to be paid by the Respondent, and he resists that order, really on the basis of his financial situation, and on the mistaken view that costs are imposed as a penalty.
2. We explained to him the correct principles relevant to costs, including that impecuniosity is not relevant, and he appeared to accept the inevitability that costs would "follow the event" here, as they normally would: see Health Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342, especially at [33] to [48].
3. However, in exercising its discretion on the question of costs, the Tribunal must be satisfied that its order satisfies the test of "justice and fairness": see Health Care Complaints Commission v Elliott [2018] NSWCATOD 47, at [79], where Commonwealth v Gretton [2008] NSWCA 117, per Hodgson JA at [121] is cited. See also discussion in Health Care Complaints Commission v Raikes [2025] NSWCATOD 82, at [72]-[80].
4. The Tribunal makes no criticism of the HCCC in bringing these proceedings, and finds no clearly "disentitling conduct" in its conduct of them, but the fact remains that the Respondent "admitted everything" well prior to his filing his early formal Reply to them, and submitted in every respect (save as to costs) to the relief pressed at the hearing.
5. We, therefore, consider it "just and fair" to reduce his responsibility for costs to eighty percent.

1. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

(1) The disclosure of the name of the person listed in the Schedule to the Complaint made in this matter is prohibited under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013;

(2) The Complaints against the Respondent are found proved;

(3) The registration of the Respondent, David John Kevin Pritchard, is cancelled pursuant to s 149C(1)(c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW);

(4) Under s 149C(7) of the said National Law, the Respondent may not apply for review of order (3) for a period of one year from the date of these orders;

(5) The Respondent is ordered to pay eighty percent of the Applicant's costs under clause 13 of Schedule 5D of the National Law, as agreed or assessed.

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.