Health Care Complaints Commission v Singh [2025] NSWCATOD 138;

1. The Respondent provided a statement to the Tribunal in which he dealt with the relationship between himself and Person A, the difficulties associated with that relationship and the stroke and depression suffered by the Respondent. The evidence of the Respondent dealt with the reasons for removing the Propofol from the Respondent's employer, his intention being to use it for pest control at his property. He spoke of the events leading up to 5 May 2020 and the fact that Person A saw the Propofol and he explained his intentions in respect of it.
2. The Respondent then related the events of 5 May 2020 which are set out verbatim below:

"...

62 On Tuesday. 5 May 2020. at about 6 00 am I was woken up by [Person A] doing the laundry

A visit to the shops

63 At around 8:00 am, I received a text message from Liverpool Hospital asking about whether I would be prepared to do the nightshift that evening. I had a conversation with [Person A] In Hindi:

(a) I said to [Person A] "They've got a shift available tonight".

(b) She said "No don't take the shift - you've been working all this while, have some rest. Can I have some money? I want to send it to my mum for Mother's Day".

(c) I said "I only have fifty dollars in my wallet".

64I handed [Person A] the $50 note from my wallet.

(a) I said to [Person A]: "Keep this - I'll get some more money when we go to the ATM".

65 At about 9 00 am, we drove to the Westfield Shopping Centre at Mount Druitt. I drove us and [Person A] sat in the front passenger seat. This took us about five·(5) minutes.

66 Upon parking at the shopping centre [Person A] remained in the car and I walked inside the complex to withdraw money from the ANZ ATM.

67 When I put my ANZ debit card in the ATM and I entered the wrong PIN number twice. I was concerned that the card would be taken by the ATM so I decided not to make another attempt.

68 From the ATM, I went to Coles and purchased the buns for the hotdog sausages I had planned to cook for dinner that night.

69 When I returned to the car and I had the following conversation with [Person A] in Hindi:

(a) I said to [Person A]: "I have forgotten my PIN number. I cannot withdraw the money - - we can wait until 9:30 until the bank opens".

(b) [Person A] replied: "No I do not want to wait, it's only Tuesday, you can get the money later".·

70 From Mount Druitt we drove to the shops situated. This also took about five (5) minutes. I bought a bottle of Southern Comfort bourbon from "Harry's Liquor".· Again, [Person A] remained in the car.

71 I returned to the car. I went into an Indian store down the road called "CK Mart" and purchased some sweets.

72 I again returned lo the car, and we drove back to the Property. I estimate that the time was about 9:30 am.

73 I recall putting the buns on the New Kitchen benchtop in the Entertainment Area.

74 After about 9:30 am, I sat on the couch in the Living Room with [Person A]. We watched an Indian movie on Netflix called "Baadshaho". I recall drinking some of the whiskey I had purchased earlier during the movie.

75 About an hour or so into the movie, at about 11:00 am [Person A] turned to me:

(a) [Person A] said to me: "Look I don't think it's a good idea. I think you should go outside and if you want to watch it, you can watch in there".·

(b) I said "Okay".

76 I decided to go into the Entertainment Area. I remember paying some bills and texting my sisters to check up on them. I had texted my younger sister at about 1:32 pm. I have included a screenshot from my younger sister's mobile phone showing an SMS she received at 1:32 pm as Exhibit US-6.

77 At some point of the text messages. I realised that the propofol remained in the boot in the car. I went to the car, and retrieved the remaining vials and boxes.

78 I recall making two (2) or three (3) trips. I put the remaining propofol in the Old Kitchen with the other propofol I had placed there the day earlier.

79 When I went to the car, and returned to the Property, I did not see [Person A] on either the couch or mattress in the Living Room.

80 I returned to the couch in the Entertainment Area. Sometime between about 1:30 pm and 2:00 pm I fell asleep on the couch.

81 Between about 5:00 and 5:30 pm [Person A] woke me up by gently shaking me.

(a) [Person A] said to me: "I am hungry, can you make me something to eat".

82 When she woke me up [Person A] was wearing the same clothes as when I had last seen her on the couch in the Living Room.

83 I cooked hotdogs for us to eat, as well as reheating the leftovers, in the New Kitchen.

84 As we were eating, I noticed that [Person A] was drowsy, slurring her words and unsteady on her feet. I asked [Person A] in Hindi:

(a) I said: "What have you done? What have you taken?"

85 Person A] did not reply. I was concerned about [Person A]'s welfare so I decided to take about seven (7) pictures of her on my phone. I wanted to show [Person A] the photos to her later, so I could later show her what her condition was at the time.

86 [Person A] screamed at me in Hindi and tried to stop me from taking her photo. We had the following conversation:

(a) [Person A] yelled· "Stop taking photos- stop!'

(b) I said: ·"I'll show them to you later, see when you are like this".

87 I have included the photographs I took on my mobile phone at approximately 5:30pm.

88 After [Person A] finished eating. she moved inside the Property from the Entertainment Area. I recall seeing that [Person A] locked the sliding doors connecting the Entertainment Area to the rest of the Property.

A visit from NSW Police

89 After I saw [Person A] locking the doors. I decided to return to sleep and I fell asleep on the couch in the Entertainment Area.

90 The next event I remember is being woken up by the sound of the sliding doors in the Entertainment Area being loudly opened.

91 I looked up from the couch and I saw NSW Police officers standing at the door of the Entertainment Area."

1. The Respondent then related the charges when he was arrested and charged with the following offences:

(1) use of poison etc. so as to endanger life (domestic violence) pursuant to s39(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);

(2) larceny as bailee pursuant to s125 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);

(3) possession/attempt to possess, prescribed restricted substance pursuant to s16(1) of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW); and

(4) common assault (domestic violence) pursuant to s61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

1. When the matter came to a hearing the most serious of the initial charges, namely the use of poison etc. as to endanger life, was withdrawn by the New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
2. Throughout his evidence the Respondent has denied that he administered the drug Propofol to Person A and sought to indicate that she might well have attempted suicide.
3. The Respondent provided a statement of Dr Leanne Hunt, a registered nurse, who has worked with the Respondent for a number of years. The details of her statement are as follows:

Background

1My name is Dr Leanne HUNT.

2I am 54 years of age. I began my career In nursing In 1992 as a registered nurse and progressed to a position of CNC (trauma) and NUM 1.

3I am currently employed In the following roles:

(a)since about 1997, I have been a registered nurse working at Liverpool Hospital, within the Intensive care unit, and now work casually on the weekends;

(b) since about 2011, I have been a Senior Lecturer in Nursing and Deputy Director, Clinical Education (Nursing) in the School of Nursing and Midwifery at the Western Sydney University;

(c) since about 2020, I have been a professional member of the NSW Nursing and Midwifery Council; and

(d) since about mid-2022, I am a part-time professional member for disciplinary proceedings commenced In the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Learning about Ugendra's criminal conduct

4 I have known Ugendra in a professional capacity for approximately 15 years, and throughout that time, I have worked with him in the intensive care unit of Liverpool Hospital.

5 In about May 2020, I learned through media articles and gossip around Liverpool Hospital that Ugendra had been arrested and charged with serious offences relating to the theft of propofol from the hospital, and the allegation that he administered the propofol to his wife with the intention of killing her.

Remarks about propofol

6 A few weeks prior to Ugendra being arrested, I recall working with him in the Intensive care unit making a bed in anticipation for a new patient.

7 I recall making mundane conversation with Ugendra as we were making the bed. At a point during the conversation, I recall the following exchange (and doing the best I can to recall the words used):

(a) Ugendra said: "I take propofol home to kill the cockroaches."

(b) I said: "Do you?"

8 I thought that Ugendra's comment about propofol was bizarre because I did not understand how he would get the cockroaches to drink propofol. I concluded that Ugendra was joking and did not think much about It until I came to learn of his arrest.

9 On about 2 June 2020, I arranged to attend an audiovisual conference via Zoom with Ugendra who had been remanded in custody.

10 During the conversation with Ugendra, I recall the following exchange (and doing the best I can to recall the words used):

(a) I said: "Do you remember the conversation we had a few weeks ago?'

(b) Ugendra said: "Oh yes - I do remember that. I'll tell my lawyer."

Ugendra's work at Liverpool Hospital

11 I came to learn that Ugendra was making an application for bail in the Supreme Court of NSW from colleagues at Liverpool Hospital.

12 I recall being asked by either Tony BOGDONOVSKI or Bibek ADHIKARY if I was prepared to sign a reference for Ugendra in support of his bail application.

13 I signed the reference and I recall that about 100 other staff at Liverpool Hospital also signed the reference.

14 I was aware that at the time that I signed the reference, that Ugendra was facing serious criminal charges including an allegation that he administered propofol with the intention of killing his wife.

15 As previously stated, I have worked with Ugendra for over a decade. Ugendra is an expert practitioner with a lot of years of experience. Ugendra mentored new and younger nurses. Ugendra was always very willing to help everybody. It is for this reason that if Ugendra is allowed to practise as a nurse again, I would be prepared to provide him with supervision and mentorship."

1. The cross examination initially centred on whether or not the Person A had advised AHPRA of a prior conviction to which she replied that she had not notified them. The cross examination then turned to questions about whether she had a different name to her current name and in particular to a marriage which she had previously had to a Robert Codell. It was then put to her that she had entered Australia without referring to the prior conviction and had not notified Ahpra. She stated that she had never changed her name and that she did not recall using the name Codell when she came to Australia.
2. The cross examination then moved on to Person A's knowledge of Propofol and whether she had access to it in her work. She stated that she had read about Propofol but did not have access to it. In regard to her allegation that the Respondent said he would give her a saline drip she was asked whether she knew what saline bag would looked like and that when she was hesitant to take the saline she stated that that was because she knew that the saline which they had in the garage was old. Person A was cross examined about discussions with the various police officers and the social worker and ultimately asked why she waited 40 to 45 minutes to phone the police. She stated that she took that length of time while she spoke to the Respondent. She was cross examined on the timing of her sleep. Ultimately she agreed that she woke earlier and it was put to her that she therefore took two hours to call the police.
3. There was cross examination in relation to the bottles of the Propofol and syringes and tourniquet in respect of all of which Person A indicated that she saw the syringes and noted that there was a milky white substance in them. Person A was cross examined on the fact that in May of 2020 she had drunk washing liquid to which she agreed. It was then put to her that she had also drunk nail polish which she denied and the cross examination then went to whether she had seen a psychologist following the washing liquid incident but denied having been given any advice to do something about it. Questions were put to her about allegations of attempts on her life and asked to agree that she was held overnight at the Mount Druitt Hospital for examination relating to an attempt at deliberate self harm. Her response was that it was back in 2002 and did not remember. It was then put to her that there was an allegation of ingesting about 200 millilitres of nail polish and she agreed. It was then put to her that on 5 May 2020 she attempted to take her own life. She denied this. Cross examination then turned to various allegations that she had made against the Respondent in February 2003 when she alleged that the Respondent had pushed her into a coffee table. On 9 July 2004 she again made a false allegation against him. Again it was put to her that on 18 November 2007 she alleged that he came home drunk and started abusing her and calling her a slut. She disagreed with that.
4. It was also put to her that on 5 May 2020 she told the police that she had never seen Propofol in the house before to which she responded that she did not recall the conversation.
5. The cross examination then turned to the time after she heard that the charges of injecting her with Propofol had been withdrawn and the fact that she was extremely upset. She was referred to visits to Westmead Hospital to be treated and that she was very upset and wanted an anti depressant. She denied ever having thoughts of suicide. It was put to the Respondent that she had told her friends and family about her separation and divorce and the reason why she maintained the position of her version of events is that she was ashamed that this was her second divorce. She denied this. That concluded the cross examination of Person A and the witness was excused.
6. The Applicant closed its case.
7. The Respondent was called to give evidence.
8. The Respondent in its opening pointed out that Complaints 1 and 2 were admitted and that it was ultimately a question of Complaint 3 a very serious allegation of him having injected her with Propofol. He admits to taking the Propofol but not to having injected Person A with it. It is suggested that the video shows that when the police arrived they found him asleep on the sofa and he said that he had been asleep for about two hours that is around 7:00pm. He pointed out that her being awake at around 5:00pm fits with his version. The Respondent in opening suggested that they would be making submissions that Person A was not a credible witness and that she had agreed to swallowing washing liquid but not to the second allegation of swallowing nail polish. He pointed out that when she was told about the case against the Respondent being dropped she talked about "going to get into her car and ending everything". She was detained under the Mental Health Act and conceded that she had not received any treatment. The Respondent submitted that this was consistent with the idea that this is likely if not probable that she injected herself with the Propofol. It was pointed out in opening that from the video one can see, when she was talking about the cannula that the place pointed out is not near where a cannula would be inserted. The policeman also indicated that the place pointed out did not look fresh.
9. The Respondent was then called and the Tribunal was referred to the two statements made by the Respondent on which the Respondent relied.
10. The Respondent was then cross examined. Cross examination commenced with reference to the fact that the Respondent had been married in 1988 and that following an assault on his then wife the marriage ended.
11. He was charged and pleaded guilty to that assault and stated that the reason he pleaded guilty to the assault because he had slapped his wife and was not represented. He denied that he had threatened his wife with a knife when she wanted to leave the house but he stated that he did not remember that. He was asked to state whether that did or did not happen to which he then stated that it did not happen.
12. The matter was then adjourned to 30 January 2025 and cross examination of the Respondent was resumed.
13. The cross examination turned to the previous allegations of common assault against him including common assault against his previous wife. In respect of the common assaults in Australia the Respondent was taken to Mount Druitt and charged and that he pleaded guilty to that. He was asked whether he recalled what was alleged against him in relation to the common assault to which he stated he did not remember exactly but that it was about pushing her. He was then referred to having been stopped by the police while driving and told them that he had had five to six beers between 8:00am and 3:00pm. He was taken to the police station and tested the results of which showed 0.9g alcohol per 100mL blood, which is above the legal limit of 0.05. He was charged and found guilty. It was put to him that he drank more than five to six beers and that it was important that he was being truthful. It was suggested that he told the police a lesser amount to lessen the offence. He disagreed with that.
14. He was referred to the charge of larceny and the fact that he pleaded guilty to that. He was asked whether he had a lawyer and was given advice by the lawyer. He also admitted that he knew that the Magistrate would rely on that statement of fact.
15. In regard to the common assault allegation he was asked whether the reason that he pleaded guilty to the common assault was that because it happened; which he denied.
16. He was then cross examined in relation to the Propofol and asked where he had put it. He stated that he had put that in a cupboard on the first occasion and that on the second occasion it was left in the car. He was asked about Person A complaining of being dehydrated to which he stated that she never said that. He was then asked why that was put into the Statement of Facts, he stated that he did not know. He was asked whether he offered to administer a saline drip which he denied. He was then asked why he agreed to that in the Statement of Facts and it was suggested that in presenting this document and signing it he made an untruthful allegation to the Magistrates Court. The Respondent stated that he did not wish to answer that question and that on advice from his solicitors he stated that he would answer that question if a certificate against incrimination is given. The certificate against incrimination was given and his response was to the effect that Mr Maybury and all the people in the room may not realise what it is like being in a prison for six months for something that he did not do. Sleeping with people you don't know and you don't know whether you wake up the next morning. He was not prepared to go back to the prison so he pleaded guilty to a common assault charge so his plea of guilty to a common assault charge was the preferable way. It was put to him that he conveyed an untruth to the Magistrates Court to which he stated that he did not agree.
17. He was asked questions about whether he slapped Person A and he stated that he did not slap her. He was asked questions about a letter that he had written to the presiding judge in the criminal case and when he related to the facts he said that he was remorseful for his actions. He stated that he did that because there was a plea bargain. It was put to him that if it didn't happen why did he say that he was remorseful, and that he said it because it did in fact happen. He disagreed with that.
18. Cross examination turned to his visits to Dr Lemmings who the Respondent had been consulting and asked whether he did tell him that he in fact did these things. He stated that that was not correct. He was asked whether he told Dr Lemmings that he was charged and was remorseful which he denied.
19. The Respondent was asked whether he was on bail at the time of these proceedings and were there certain conditions imposed on him. He agreed. It was put to him that under the conditions he was not allowed to attend any place serving alcohol to which he agreed. He also responded to the fact that in order to not go back to jail he needed to comply. He was asked if he ever breached that condition and stated that he had not. It was put to him that he did however go to a place selling alcohol and gave an explanation that he wanted to get some change as his mother needed it; so he went there to get some change and Person A saw him. He was asked whether there was no other place to get change, he stated that there was but that he had passed it. He was asked how long he was at the pub and stated that it was about five to ten minutes.
20. He was asked whether he had a $50 note. He confirmed that he did and was asked whether he went to the pub and asked for change. He stated that they have change machines and it was therefore put to him that he could have got the change and left. He was asked whether he went to the bar and got a drink which he confirmed but he stated that when he saw Person A he did not finish his drink and left. He was asked why it is that if he was so fearful of going back to jail he went to a pub and had a drink to which he responded that he was not thinking straight. It was put to him that he had no respect for the law and that is why he did it, which he said was not correct.
21. The cross examination then moved to the stealing of the Propofol and the fact that his explanation was that he took it to deal with cockroaches. He was referred to certain photographs showing a gap in the doors where the cockroaches were coming in and was asked whether he thought of doing something else to deal with it. He called someone to come and deal with it. One person said he would not come and the other quoted $200 plus. He said that that was too much so he went and bought 2 x 2 litres of Mortein to spray and bought nozzles to spray it around.
22. Cross examination then addressed the alternatives for dealing with cockroaches and was questioned on the fact that he purchased spray for cockroaches on 17 March 2020. He was asked why he had not used the spray by 4 May 2022. His only response was that it was a very bad problem but gave no explanation as to why he had not used it prior thereto. Once he decided to deal with the matter in May he chose to steal the Propofol from his employer and in explanation he stated that Propofol is a sticky substance so he believed that he could get the cockroaches to stick to the ground and then spray them with a destructive spray.
23. The cross examination then moved on to the handling of the Propofol. According to his evidence he stated that he placed the initial Propofol in the cupboard in the kitchen and stated that his wife knew that it was there. He was then asked questions in relation to the additional Propofol that he removed from the hospital the next day. He was asked questions as to why some of the Propofol was not in boxes while others were and he stated that that was just how he took it. He stated that he spoke to his sister at 1:32pm and went straight to sleep after that. He was asked questions in relation to the CCTV camera where he went to the car after 3:00pm when he said that he was asleep. His answer was that he must have lost time or the sequence of events.
24. It was put to him that the reason he stated that Person A did not want to live anymore was because he wanted to show that she was trying to kill herself. He then said that that was not the case, but when asked whether he alleged that she was administering the Propofol to herself he said he did not know what happened.

1. The Applicant provided submissions on the question of the obligations of the Tribunal and accepts that the Applicant has the onus of proof in relation to the Complaint. The Applicant however indicated that there were a number of troubling aspects to the Respondent's version of events and the manner in which events unfolded which tell against him being accepted as a witness of truth.
2. They included:

(1) that the Respondent was prepared to steal restricted substances from his workplace on not 1 but 2 occasions, on his version to avoid paying $300 or $400 to a pest controller;

(2) that the Respondent's explanation for why he took the Propofol is addressed below;

(3) that the Respondent was prepared to break his bail conditions, which he accepted he knew was very serious and could mean he went back to prison, to `get change' from licensed premises. There were other places such as service stations he could have tried, but his evidence was he thought this was the best place, and he could not possibly simply not get change for his family member. The Tribunal would find this was a lie and he went there for his own purposes, but in any event going there to `get change' then staying for a drink was clearly something he knew was improper and yet he did it anyway. It also does not align with his evidence that he pleaded guilty to the assault charge even though it was untrue because he would, in essence, do anything to avoid prison;

(4) that the Respondent's version of events has changed at times, such as:

(a) the Respondent told Police he brought the Propofol home and when he got home he just "left them in the cupboard", he just took it straight home to the cupboard "Yeah". That version was given in conjunction with him telling Police that he had spent most of the day on 5 May 2020 sleeping, that he had fallen asleep just after midday and woken up at 5:00pm;

That version is plainly untruthful, based on the CCTV footage which shows the Respondent going back and forward to the car several times in the afternoon of 5 May 2020 to retrieve a few boxes of Propofol at a time from his car boot;

(b) when confronted with the objective evidence that, firstly what he had said about what he did with the Propofol was wrong and, secondly, put paid to the suggestion he had simply spent the whole afternoon sleeping, the Respondent's change of tack was to have this unconvincing exchange with Police when they asked him about the CCTV footage:

Respondent "I remembered it was in the car and it needed to be in the fridge' [The Respondent's evidence in the proceedings was it does not in fact need to be stored in the fridge]

Police "So the boxes contained Propofol"

Respondent "Yes"

Police "You said you were asleep during this time"

Respondent "I did sleep, yes. "

Police "Why did you do so many trips to the car?"

Respondent "Because I remembered that there was more in the car"

(c) when confronted with the apparent anomaly and questioned as to why he made so many trips to the car separated in time, the Respondent gave evidence that after the first trip he got distracted because he remembered he had a bill he had to pay on the internet. This evidence was wholly unconvincing, and in any event does not explain why there were 3 trips separate in time, rather than 2.

It should be noted the objective evidence also does not align with the Respondent's evidence in his statement, whereby he got all the Propofol from the car and then fell asleep on the couch between 1:30 and 2:00pm;

(d) the Respondent told Police he was going to use a syringe to spray the Propofol around his premises but in cross examination, no doubt having realised the ridiculousness of that statement, he said that he was going to use the pump he had bought to spray the Mortein he had purchased to also spread the Propofol;

(5) the Respondent's explanation for why he took photos of Person A in the late afternoon or early evening of 5 May 2020 is bizarre. He says he took photos because she was slurring, drowsy and unsteady, that he was worried and wanted to show her later how she was behaving, but he had no explanation for why in those circumstances he took a few still photos instead of a video;

(6) the Respondent's evidence in the witness box to the effect that when stealing the Propofol he had no clue discovery would lead to serious disciplinary issues or him losing his job was ridiculous. He told Police immediately after being caught that he was really scared he would probably lose his job. In answer to questions from the Tribunal he gave evidence that in his many years working at Liverpool Hospital there had been training about the seriousness of taking things.

(7) this evidence under pressure in the witness box was an example of the Respondent simply refusing to accept that he was aware of the seriousness of his actions, and to demur or downplay his misconduct. It showed he was prepared to say things that simply were not true to paint himself in a better light.

1. The cockroach explanation is the Respondents false, manufactured explanation as to why he stole the Propofol. It is worth considering in some detail, and it unfolded like this:

(1) the Respondent said he had the pest trouble and could not afford a pest controller;

(2) he said he had been Googling, and Propofol could be used to deter cockroaches;

(3) his plan was to spread the Propofol around the house and then spray with Mortein afterwards.

(4) he had bought some Mortein to spray around the house in this manner, but it should be noted that he purchased this on 17 March 2020, some 7 weeks before the events the subject of the application, and despite him saying how bad the pest problem was, he had not used it in that time;

(5) he took the Propofol to spread around because it was oily and sticky, and he thought if insects came into contact with it, it would slow them down so he could then go and spray them with Mortein (even though the Mortein he purchased was an outdoor spray that he agreed in his evidence was to create a barrier to prevent insects); and

(6) in cross examination he said he had not turned his mind or given thought to using any other sticky substance to execute his plan. No doubt this was because his plan was an unbelievable concoction.

1. There is then the difficulties with the evidence about how the Propofol got into the house, the Respondent clearly initially trying to convey he got home and brought it all in, until confronted with the CCTV footage.
2. The story about the cockroaches is a falsehood. It beggars belief that the Respondent would put his job on the line to steal a restricted, potent, pharmaceutical substance to try and slow down cockroaches by randomly spraying (a mere 600mL of ) Propofol around his house so that he could then kill them. It was a lie to the Police when put on the spot that the Respondent has wedded himself to. The Tribunal should find that the Respondent deliberately lied to Police and in his evidence in this Tribunal about his reason for stealing the Propofol. That has a devastating and damning impact on his credit, and certainly helps to explain some of the other inconsistencies. The Respondent is prepared to lie and change his version as suits him.
3. Which brings us to his evidence as to the events of 5 May 2020 in general. Put simply, it should be rejected. His evidence that he went out to the back room and did not see Person A again until after he awoke from his nap (whenever that really was) must be rejected, particularly given it was originally prefaced on him going to that room and sleeping from 12:00pm to 5:00pm, but we now know he returned through the main section of the house several times throughout the afternoon.
4. His evidence was that on the last occasion that he took Propofol to the cupboard, after his trip to the car around 3:30pm, the Propofol was all still there. That is untrue. What in fact was happening was that he was going back and forward to the car to get more Propofol to administer to Person A. On his version between 3:30pm and 5:00pm Person A must have found the Propofol and self administered it (seemingly an extremely large quantity in a short period, given the Police found 12 empty vials). Moreover, based on the paraphernalia found by Police, it seems to be suggested she self administered it through a cannula line and a push syringe, which seems a bizarre way of self administration particularly because this would have made her insensate almost immediately.
5. Person A's evidence that he offered to give her saline, inserted a cannula then she passed out (inferentially due to him administering Propofol instead) should be accepted. Person A was clearly a person who had been caused significant distress by the Respondent. Her evidence about this issue was forthright, direct and consistent. She had Propofol in her blood. There is no reason to reject her evidence and prefer the Respondent's, or to reject her evidence at all. She was clearly distressed when Police arrived, consistent with the awful events that had befallen her.
6. The Respondent cannot be believed. The Tribunal should find he has tailored his version to Police and the Tribunal, knowing it was false, to avoid or minimise the consequences of his actions, in the same way he presented himself to the Local Court to try and do the same.

1. The Respondent has made submissions in relation to the onus of proof and how the Tribunal should assess that and has then turned to the evidence of Person A whose evidence it submits should be rejected by the Tribunal. In relation to that evidence the Respondent commences with arguments in relation to the untruths which Person A has told in previous allegations of assault and which the police were concerned about. In relation to Person A's motive to be untruthful the Respondent states that Person A harboured wicked motives to give and later maintain a fictitious narrative of events. The Respondent also referred to previous attempts at self‑harm and/or suicide attempts and indicated that on that basis it should be determined that an explanation of the injection of Propofol should be seen as an attempt to commit suicide.
2. The Respondent submitted that Person A self administering Propofol would be a plausible alternative account to a calculated and deliberate attempt to murder her. It would be the common experience and well within the expertise of the Members of the Tribunal that a previous suicide attempt is the largest single factor predictive of future suicide risk and death by suicide. This alternative may also offer a cogent explanation for the logical inconsistencies the Respondent will draw the Tribunal's attention in the balance of these submissions. In support of that allegation a report by a forensic toxicologist following analysis of journal articles cited in her report that there have been "numerous reports of Propofol being abused mainly by medical professionals due to their easy access to this drug".
3. The Respondent then moved onto the events of 5 May 2020 and early 6 May 2020.
4. The Respondent submitted a number of instances of discrepancies in the period after she awoke and her communications with the police. In light of the various communications to which the Respondent referred the Respondent submitted that the Applicant's submission that Person A's evidence was "straightforward, consistent and compelling". The Respondent submitted that it was hardly straightforward, consistent and compelling.
5. The Respondent relied heavily on conversations with the police and the ambulance authorities and in particular to statements about what the police saw in respect of the insertion of a cannula with the constable stating that upon inspection Person A's left hand he saw "two small red marks on the back of her left hand one closer to her wrist and one closer to her knuckles". Person A "pointed to the red mark closer to her wrist and said this is new. This is where he put it" and "pointed to the mark closer to her knuckle and said this is a scar".
6. The Respondent dealt with the insertion of a cannula for receiving a saline infusion and the fact that she was told that the Respondent was going to bring a saline solution bag and her statement that she did not see him with a saline bag and that she saw a milky substance in a vial. The Respondent submitted that this is highly unlikely as she would have known the difference between putting up a saline bag and working with something other than a saline bag which would have been clear. The Respondent raised serious doubts about Person A's version of the insertion of the cannula and the fact that according to her version the Respondent, a trained nurse with over 20 years of experience would require at least five separate attempts before succeeding - twice on her right hand and three times on her left hand. The Respondent submitted that this would be a most unlikely situation to arise with the experience that the Respondent has as a nurse.
7. The Respondent stated that it was curious that Person A did not contact emergency services either New South Wales Police or New South Wales Ambulance upon waking despite knowing the 000 number. Notwithstanding a grave allegation and the fears she held for her safety she waited about 40 to 45 minutes after confronting the Respondent before using Google to find the number of Mount Druitt Police Station. Further the Respondent submitted that the toxicology report of Dr Van Nieuwenhuijzen stated that he was unable to determine whether the Propofol was administered voluntarily or not nor is he able to determine how much Propofol was administered. The toxicological evidence only shows that Propofol was in Person A's system. It states that that proposition is consistent with the Respondent's assertion that Person A had self‑administered the drug.
8. The Respondent submitted that the risk of detection and inevitable prosecution would have been obvious to the Respondent, however the Respondent submitted when interrogated that the counterfactual is wildly implausible. First, the Respondent was a competent intensive care nurse, who was aware that he used his swipe key to access the propofol from the ICU pharmacy of Liverpool Hospital. Further, if it was not obvious to any investigator where the Respondent could have obtained the vials, the Respondent was also aware that the propofol was likely to be traceable, like all medications, by their unique batch numbers (that is precisely how NSW Police approached this task). Second, if the Respondent truly wished to seriously harm Person A, this was not a cunning plan. The Respondent would have been the obvious suspect, and the weapon used would have sealed his fate. The Commission would have the Members of this Tribunal believe that the Respondent, having committed a heinous felony, left himself at the mercy of law enforcement by taking a nap. Third, and related to the second, instead of fleeing when the means and opportunity presented itself - at 12:24pm, or 3:04pm, or 3:36pm being times which the Commission has asserted the Respondent was injecting Person A, the Respondent returned, continued to offend, and inexplicably did not seek to conceal or destroy incriminating evidence. Fourth, the Respondent left damning evidence exposed where the only witness who could accuse him of criminality had been "knocked out". In those circumstances, it is nonsensical that the Respondent:

(1) did not seek to dispose of any of the paraphernalia said to have been used to commit the offence;

(2) did not seek to dispose of the substance or evidence of its existence where the vials could have easily been traced to Liverpool Hospital - his place of employment;

(3) despite having access to the CCTV, did not attempt to delete or wipe the hard drive when he knew that he was captured on it; and

(4) was polite and cooperative with law enforcement in the manner described without any knowledge that the NSW Police officers had located the blue plastic bag secreted in a different room in the house.

Fifth, the Puncture Allegation is illogical. If Person A is to be believed, the pathways to the puncture marks on both of her hands is binary - either the Respondent attempted to cannulate Person A on at least five (5) separate occasions before succeeding - twice (2) on her right hand, and three (3) on her left; or he made further attempts after Person A was unconscious. The Commission would have the experienced nursing practitioners of this Tribunal accept that the Respondent failed to properly cannulate Person A where, by Person A's own account, she was not physically resisting its insertion having consented to a saline drip. Again, given the Respondent's experience and study, this seems highly improbable.

1. The Respondent's account does not beggar belief, as described by the Commission by pointing out that the Respondent bears no onus. Although it is conceded that the Respondent's explanation for stealing the Propofol is unusual, the Respondent had foreshadowed his purpose for taking the Propofol with Dr Hunt before 5 May 2020 and where the Respondent's conduct that evening having committed a heinous offence is intuitively irrational, the Respondent submits that his evidence ought to be preferred over Person A.

1. The Tribunal having read the evidence contained in all of the exhibits provided to the Tribunal, having heard the evidence presented by the Applicant and the evidence given by the Respondent, having reviewed the various additional documents which were tendered and having considered the submissions made by the Applicant and the Respondent, the Tribunal is satisfied that the complaint made by the Applicant against the Respondent as set out in the Complaints 1 and 2 by admission and therefore require no reasons. In respect of Complaint 3 the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Complaint is proven and that the Respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct.
2. The basis on which the Tribunal has come to that conclusion is that the Tribunal noted the submissions by the Applicant and the Respondent that the onus of proving the Complaint rests with the Applicant; and that as the version presented by Person A and the version presented by the Respondent are diametrically opposed, it is imperative for the Tribunal to form a view on the two witnesses and to determine whose version of the events the Tribunal finds more acceptable.
3. Person A gave evidence of the events on the day and was extensively cross examined on issues relating to her credibility including past allegations of assaults on her person and also on an assault committed by Person A some many years before this event.
4. It became clear that there were aspects of her evidence which were challenged and which indicated that in various instances she had either lied or failed to disclose the truth. This position certainly called into question her credibility but in respect of the events of the day, notwithstanding that there were differences in her evidence given to the police on the day or made by her subsequently, the main issue for testing the evidence of Person A was the testing of the implication by the Respondent that Person A had administered 12 vials of Propofol to herself in an attempt to commit suicide. The evidence of Person A was clear in that she had discussed with the Respondent the fact that she was feeling dehydrated and the Respondent stated that he would take some saline liquid which he had in the garage and would administer saline to her to rehydrate. She was to some extent concerned about having the saline administered to her but ultimately agreed for the Respondent to do so. In her evidence she stated that she was concerned when the Respondent did not hang a saline bag in the normal way and when the Respondent was administering the liquid she noted that it looked murky and not clear. However by the time she asked the Respondent why that was so she was already drowsy and only woke up some considerable time later.
5. As there were doubts about the credibility of Person A it was extremely important for the Tribunal to then hear the evidence of the Respondent and to consider the credibility of the Respondent as there was a direct conflict on the specific issue relating to the administering of the Propofol. The Respondent also gave evidence in various forms and there were various contradictions in evidence given by the Respondent. Turning to the evidence of the day the evidence which the Respondent gave was to the effect that he went to obtain saline from the garage. He denied that he ever administered any Propofol to the Respondent and in order to confirm that position he stated that he had spoken to his sister at approximately midday at a time when Person A was asleep and that immediately thereafter he went to sleep himself and was only woken by the police after they had been called by Person A.
6. The issue of the handling of the Propofol is important in that in the evidence of the Respondent he stated that he had brought home six vials of Propofol which he had stolen from the hospital at which he worked and that the following day he had again taken six vials from the hospital and brought those home. The sequence of events which were his evidence was that he had put the six vials into the cupboard in the kitchen and on the following day had left the vials in his car and that he had brought them into the house at some point of time on the day. In cross examination the Respondent was challenged on the timing of the placing of the additional vials in the cupboard and was shown CCTV footage of his security system in which it was clear that he made three trips to the car to bring in additional vials of Propofol in a period of time between 3:30pm and 4:00pm. This was in direct conflict with his evidence that he went to sleep shortly after having spoken to his sister and that he remained asleep for several hours. Counsel for the Applicant sought to receive an explanation for the conflict in that evidence and the Respondent was unable to give any convincing evidence as to how it happened that he could be brining vials of Propofol into the house when he alleged that he had been sleeping. A further concerning element of his evidence on this issue was that he claimed that the vials of Propofol were placed in the cupboard but in a discussion with the police he stated that he had gone out to bring the vials in so that he could put them in the fridge. He denied that he had said that as his position had always been that the vials could be kept in the cupboard.
7. In considering the fact that Propofol was found in Person A's body after examination forces the Tribunal to consider the likelihood of how that came to be there.
8. There was no suggestion at any time that there was any person other than Person A and the Respondent in the house on that day. Accordingly, if the Respondent denies that he administered the Propofol the implication must be that Person A administered it herself in order to commit suicide. It is for that reason that evidence was lead of two previous instances where Person A swallowed soap liquid and on one occasion nail polish.
9. The Tribunal was concerned about this implication in that there were 12 vials of Propofol which were found alongside where Person A had been sleeping and that they were empty. It is difficult to imagine that a person could in the space of time alleged have administered 12 vials of Propofol to herself.
10. A further concern which the Tribunal had with the Respondent's evidence is the explanation which the Respondent gave for why he stole the Propofol in the first place. His explanation was to the effect that he was concerned about an excessive number of cockroaches that were entering the house through access points and that he had sought to have that dealt with by a pest control expert. The quotations were in the range of $400 and he decided that he could not spend that amount. Therefore months before this incident he went to Costco and purchased Mortein liquid and a spray to spray the surrounding area and to kill the cockroaches. The Respondent was challenged on the fact that if he was so concerned about the cockroaches what was his reason for not utilising the Mortein that he had purchased and that months had passed before he then determined to use the Propofol in conjunction with the Mortein.
11. A further area in which the Tribunal were concerned about the credibility of the Respondent was in relation to the criminal trial brought against him and in which he reached a plea bargain with the prosecution in order to not have to be returned to prison where he had been held prior to the hearing and not on bail. The answer which he gave was that he was so afraid after the hearing and when he was released on certain conditions namely that he was not permitted to enter any premises where alcohol was served and then he relayed to the Tribunal an incident when he needed to change a $50 note and which he then went into a pub to do so. He was challenged on the fact that he was not permitted to go into a pub and that he could have changed the $50 note at some other place. He could not give a valid answer to that challenge. In addition he was asked whether he immediately changed the money and then left immediately but responded that he had just gone and bought a beer. He was seen by Person A and he therefore left immediately. That is inconsistent with the suggestion that he entered into a plea bargain in order to avoid the possibility of being returned to jail. On balance the Tribunal formed the view that the Respondent was prone to make statements that were extremely self‑serving even in situations where they were largely not credible.
12. Weighing up the evidence with its flaws of Person A and the evidence of the Respondent with its flaws the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the Respondent's version should be rejected and accordingly, as there was no other possible way in which Propofol could have got into Person A's body, that the Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in Complaint 3 and that this is professional misconduct.
13. That concludes Stage 1 of this matter and the issues relating to the question of orders to be made will be determined after the Stage 2 hearing which has been set.

(1) The Respondent is guilty of Complaints 1, 2 and 3 and is found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct.

(2) The matter is adjourned to 27 and 28 November 2025 for hearing of Stage 2.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

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.