Issue 4: whether, and if so in what manner, the Tribunal should exercise its disciplinary powers under Pt 8 Div 3 Subdiv 6 of the National Law
- Most of the evidence adduced by Ms Wilkinson is not relevant to this issue and has not been taken into account. We have ignored the many unsubstantiated assertions about events occurring before and after the stage 1 decision set out in the Wilkinson stage 2 submissions as they are not relevant to the determination of this issue.
- The principles in Flett at [18]-[26] and other cases referred to by Ms Wilkinson are largely not relevant to this stage 2 hearing. To the extent that they deal with protective orders, there is no relevant difference to the principles set out in [20] to [25] above.
- The HCCC indicated that they are not withdrawing the proceedings. We have no power to compel the HCCC to withdraw the proceedings.
- We are not satisfied that the position in Howard is analogous to the circumstances in these proceedings.
- In Howard, the Tribunal considered an appeal by the practitioner against a decision of the NMC made on 3 July 2019 imposing conditions for remote supervision and continued psychiatric treatment on her registration as a nurse. The practitioner was registered as a nurse in 1987. Over a number of years, she had dealt with mental health issues. These issues had included periods of treatment in and out of hospital. She was currently unemployed and had not worked as a nurse since February 2017. She received a government income support payment. Since 1997, she had had a number of interactions with the NMC and its predecessor, the Nurses and Midwives Board (the Board) arising from her health issues. The Board first imposed conditions on her registration on 28 May 2009. The practitioner provided a number of health reports and testimonials. The Tribunal was satisfied that the protection of the public is not compromised by the removal of the conditions on her registration. It found that the practitioner had been subject to conditions for long enough. There is no practical utility to the conditions. This is because she has not been able to secure employment. In essence the conditions have been unable to serve their purpose which was to provide some objective evidence as to her progress in a nursing role. The Tribunal found that the allegations against her which led to the s 150 proceedings had never been fully tested. She was not subject to a conduct hearing, and denied key aspects of the allegations. For these reasons the Tribunal set aside the impugned decision and ordered that all conditions on her registration be removed.
- Unlike the practitioner in Howard, Ms Wilkinson has not provided any health reports and testimonials. Further, unlike the practitioner in Howard, the allegations against Ms Wilkinson have been fully tested, and we have found her guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and to have an impairment. It follows that we do not accept Ms Wilkinson's submission that no protective action should be taken against her.
- We do not accept Ms Wilkinson's unsubstantiated submission that Dr Sheppard does not believe that she poses a risk to the public.
- Having regard to ss 3 to 4A of the National Law and the principles set out at [20] to [28] above, we are satisfied that the approval conditions, the treatment conditions, the mentoring conditions, and the review conditions in the HCCC conditions are appropriate. If followed, they will enable Ms Wilkinson to practice as a nurse in the manner that will reduce the risk to the public arising from her impairment. In view of our finding in the stage 1 decision at [88], we are satisfied that it is appropriate to impose critical compliance conditions as set out in the HCCC conditions.