Health Ombudsman v Edwards [2025] QCAT 484

The conduct of the respondent in allegation 1 constitutes professional misconduct, pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).
The respondent is reprimanded, pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).
The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner until 22 April 2026, pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).
The respondent is prohibited from providing any health services until 22 April 2026, pursuant to s 107(4)(b)(i) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).
No order as to costs.

[1] The matter relates to the conduct of the respondent who pleaded guilty to criminal offences on 22 October 2024 and was at the time a registered nurse. The respondent was first granted registration by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia ('the Board') on 23 December 2011. The respondent failed to renew her registration on 31 May 2021, and has not been registered from 2 July 2021. She remains unregistered.
[2] On 7 March 2021, the respondent was arrested and charged by Queensland Police with criminal offences. She was remanded in custody. Eventually she was granted bail, but after having spent some three-and-a-half months in custody. On 5 July 2021, the Health Ombudsman received information from the Queensland Police Service regarding her offending. Eventually, she pleaded guilty on 29 August 2024 to the following charges: attempt to enter a dwelling with intent at night, use or threatened use of violence whilst armed, damage to property, assault occasioning bodily harm and threatening violence at night.
[3] On 22 October 2024, the respondent was sentenced in the Brisbane District Court. On the first charge, she was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended after the time she had served, with an operational period of 18 months. In relation to the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm, she was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended after time served, with an operational period of 18 months. In relation to the charge of threatening violence at night, she was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, suspended after time served, with an operational period of 18 months. While the sentence imposed on the respondent may seem inconsistent with the fact she had been refused bail, this was due to the original charges brought by the police were substituted for much less serious charges.
[4] On 28 October 2024, an investigation was commenced by the Health Ombudsman, and on 28 November 2024, the matter was referred to the director of proceedings, and on 11 December 2024, the applicant filed the referral, which resulted in this Tribunal hearing. The applicant bears the onus of proof. It must satisfy the Tribunal of the relevant facts and matters on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the matters identified in Briginshaw v Briginshaw and Anor [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at paragraph 361. The main principle for administering the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) is that the health and safety of the public are paramount.
[5] It is for the Tribunal to exercise its independent discretion to decide whether the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional performance, unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct, and then the appropriate sanction. The definition of professional misconduct is conduct that is substantially below the standard which might reasonably be expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. The respondent, then being a registered nurse, was subject to the codes of conduct and guidelines for a registered nurse. In particular, these codes and guidelines require that nurses practise honestly and ethically and should not engage in unlawful behaviour, as it may affect their practice and or damage the reputation of the profession. Nurses must not participate in unlawful behaviour and understand that unlawful behaviour may be viewed as unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct and may have implications for their registration.
[6] By way of outline, the facts surrounding the impunity conduct are that the victims of the offending were a father and son. The daughter of the respondent became involved with the son in a sexual relationship. That child was only 15 at the time. She had alleged that the son had raped her. The respondent became aware of the allegation and later found out the name of the alleged perpetrator. She found out where he lived from a package that had been delivered to her daughter. She was very intoxicated at the time. Her blood alcohol reading reveals she would have been .21. She arrived at the house. She asked to speak to the son. She was holding a knife. She started banging and screaming on the screen door, alleging that he had raped her daughter. She stabbed the knife through the security screen door. She continued yelling. She was kicking the screen door.
[7] The father obtained a shovel and used it to resist the actions of the respondent. He sustained lacerations to both ankles while standing near the front door, as a result of shattered glass. The son suffered no injuries. Any injuries suffered were not a direct injury, but rather a resultant injury. The respondent left, went back to her car, and placed the knife she had been holding in her car. She continued, however, yelling at the son. She also suffered small lacerations to her hands.
[8] At the sentencing, submissions were made on her behalf in respect of the respondent's daughter, who was young and suffering mental health problems. It was submitted that the respondent had already paid a very high price for her offending, having spent the almost three-and-a-half months' imprisonment before granted bail. I presume this was because of the criminal charges brought, which were later dropped. The charges for which she pleaded guilty almost certainly would have led to a grant of bail if they were led in the first instance.
[9] It was submitted the respondent had lost the rental property that she had been living in for six years, and her employment as a nurse. More details were given, but in sentencing, His Honour Judge Allen KC acknowledged the offending was out of character for the respondent, who had no previous criminal convictions, and was only explicable because of the particular circumstances of her daughter at the time. The applicant submits that the conduct amounts to professional misconduct. It is not an absolute rule, but where criminal conduct is committed resulting in a custodial sentence, it would be very unlikely that that would not be seen to amount to professional misconduct, even where the custodial sentence is suspended for a period or wholly.
[10] The determination of sanction is a matter for the Tribunal. Disciplinary proceedings are protective, not punitive in nature, and the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public and maintain standards of the profession. The respondent has not been registered as a nurse since 7 March 2021. Therefore, there is no room for the Tribunal to suspend or impose conditions. There was a submission made by the applicant in June 2025, that the respondent's level of remorse for the offending was unclear. However, since then, she has submitted written material, which the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied demonstrates insight in remorse.
[11] The Tribunal is concerned with matters as to sanction. The Tribunal should place weight on both personal and general deterrent. Here, there is much less weight to be placed on personal deterrent. It is unlikely anything like this would occur again. That leaves the matter of general deterrent, because it is important to send a message to other health practitioners that this type of conduct will not be tolerated. There are a number of cases that point out that where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, they will not be permitted to return to practice until they have completed their sentence, including the operational period of the suspended sentence, unless circumstances plainly justify otherwise. And the operational period for this respondent's sentence concludes on 22 April 2026.
[12] The applicant has provided case comparatives. The Tribunal may be assisted by following cases which demonstrate offending of a similar nature. No two cases are the same, but the cases may be useful to set out the parameters of an appropriate order for sanction. Each of the three cases which have been referred to are more serious than this case.
[13] The first case of Health Ombudsman v Flute [2021] QCAT 189 involved a practitioner who went uninvited to an address and hit a male person at least ten times, causing his brow to split and then entering the house and punching two females, causing injuries. She also had other allegations related to failure to notify the Board, and she was also convicted of serious drug offences, including trafficking in methamphetamine and cannabis. She was disqualified from applying for registration for a period of two years, although she had already been out of the profession for about three years prior to that.
[14] The second case of Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Sellen [2020] QCAT 318 relates to an altercation occurring between an enrolled nurse and another woman. The nurse followed the other woman to her home; they had been friends, but their relationship had broken down. In that case there was direct violence. The complainant in that case was grabbed around the throat and pushed against a wall. In the course of being propelled across the kitchen, the complainant fell, as a result she suffered a fractured hip. She was sentenced, and the longest sentence which was imposed on her was two years and six months, which spells out that it was a more serious case than this one.
[15] The last case of Health Ombudsman v Lozano [2021] QCAT 87 is a much more serious case, because there were a number of allegations in respect of different dates. In each case direct violence was imposed on another person. He was reprimanded and disqualified for 12 months.
[16] Here, the Tribunal is comfortably of the view that there should be an order disqualifying the respondent from applying for registration for a period of time, but the Tribunal is of the view that that should be until 22 April 2026 when the sentence will have expired.
[17] The board seeks an order that pursuant to section 107(4)(b) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) the respondent be prohibited from providing any health service, such that she is precluded from doing so for the same period for which is disqualified. And I understand that the reason for seeking such a prohibition is that, I assume, as the respondent worked in aged care, there might be an opportunity for her to do that without being registered which is a risk which justifies prohibition.
[18] The orders of the Tribunal therefore are:

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)