Health Ombudsman v Garrahy [2026] QCAT 58

[3] On 31 October 2023, a notification was received by the Office of the Health Ombudsman ('OHO') from QAS. On 18 January 2024, Ms O reported the matter to police.

[4] An investigation was subsequently commenced by the OHO, but no action was ultimately taken against the Respondent.

[5] On 16 February 2024, the Respondent notified the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('AHPRA'), pursuant to section 130 of the National Law, of being charged with a criminal offence.

[6] On 29 June 2024, the Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault. On 30 September 2024, he was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court and received a six-month good behaviour bond. The Respondent was also ordered to pay $1,000 compensation within 28 days. No conviction was recorded.

[7] The parties signed an agreed statement of facts which was filed with the Tribunal on 12 June 2025. On 5 December 2025, legal representatives for the respondent filed written submissions on behalf of the Respondent. Those submissions confirm that the Respondent accepts the characterisation of the conduct as sought by the Applicant and accepts the sanction sought by the Applicant, but sought to make some additional submissions, contained therein. A further email was received from the Office of the Health Ombudsman on 12 January 2026, confirming the parties agreed to the characterisation and sanction, and considered it appropriate for the matter to be dealt with on the papers.

[8] Pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal considers it appropriate for the matter to be dealt with on the papers.

[9] The Respondent is currently 33 years of age. At the time of the conduct, he was 31 years of age.

[10] On 8 February 2019, the Respondent was first granted registration by the Paramedicine Board of Australia ('the Board'), as a registered paramedic, pursuant to the National Law. At all relevant times, the Respondent remained registered as a paramedic, and at the time of the conduct, was employed as the Acting Operations Supervisor, Metro South Region, with QAS.

[11] The victim is Ms O, who was 31 years of age at the time of the conduct.

[12] Both Ms O and the Respondent were employed by QAS, and were work friends. At the time of the conduct, the Respondent was a supervisor within the region Ms O was also employed.

[13] On 15 July 2023, the Respondent and Ms O attended a social function organised by a QAS social club, at Brew Dog, in Fortitude Valley.

[14] When the Respondent arrived at the social function, he was already intoxicated.

[15] Between approximately 9:00pm and 9:45pm, Ms O was sitting on a bar stool, at a long table, with most members of the QAS group. The respondent was standing nearby, engaged in conversation with Ms O. During the conversation, the Respondent groped Ms O's breasts with both hands, for approximately five seconds. Ms O was shocked and put her hands across her chest to discourage the Respondent's conduct. Ms O felt pain when the Respondent groped her breasts.

[16] Ms O, feeling very uncomfortable, immediately left the venue.

[17] Over a period of approximately 12 hours, commencing at 12:14am the morning after the incident, the Respondent and Ms O exchanged messages on Instagram, with the Respondent indicating he originally did not recall the incident. Later that day, the Respondent acknowledged that he did recall his conduct and referred to his conduct as "abysmal."

Words cannot describe how embarrassed I feel, the complete regret I have. These are just words, but they are just shame on me and the complete disrespect to both you and ...

[19] During a continuation of the conversation on Instagram, the following messages were exchanged:

Ms O: Sexual groping isn't a fucking tism.

Respondent: It's not no, and not forgivable. I'm sorry for my actions...

[20] On 6 October 2023, Ms O made a formal complaint to QAS, and on 10 October 2023, QAS suspended the Respondent from duty on normal remuneration.

[21] Ms O ultimately made a complaint to police, and the Respondent was charged with sexual assault, to which he pleaded guilty.

[22] On 19 March 2025, the Respondent's employment with QAS was terminated.

[23] The parties agree that the conduct of the respondent should be characterised as "professional misconduct" as defined in section 5 of the National Law.

[24] Pursuant to Section 5 of the National Law professional misconduct of a registered health practitioner, includes -

(a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(b) more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner's profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

[25] It is submitted by the Applicant that the Tribunal would be satisfied that the conduct satisfied both the first and third limbs of the definition. The respondent concedes the characterisation as particularised by the Applicant.

[26] In terms of the characterisation of the conduct; in determining whether it is conduct inconsistent with the Respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration, the determination is to be made at the time of the conduct.[2]

[27] The Tribunal accepts that the conduct of the Respondent is conduct that can be characterised as professional misconduct, namely that the conduct is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and the conduct of the Respondent is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession. The Respondent's breach of professional boundaries at a social workplace function undermines workplace safety and public confidence in the profession.

[28] Having decided that the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, the Tribunal has a wide discretion to impose sanctions ranging from a caution, or a reprimand of the practitioner, to cancellation of registration.[3]

[29] As to the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of the current matter, the parties are agreed that the appropriate sanction is as follows:

(a) a finding that the conduct of the Respondent constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the HO Act;

(b) an order, pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, that the Respondent is reprimanded; and

(c) an order pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the HP Act, suspending the respondent's registration for a period of three (3) months.

[30] Disciplinary proceedings are protective and not punitive in nature. Further, where the parties have agreed on the appropriate sanction, whilst the Tribunal retains a discretion to impose a different sanction, it ought not readily depart from the parties' agreed position unless the Tribunal considers the agreed sanction inappropriate in the overall circumstances of the matter.[4]

[31] When determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal has regard to the following relevant considerations:

(a) the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public;

(b) determinations should not be punitive in nature;

(c) the nature and seriousness of the alleged conduct;

(d) the extent to which the practitioner has shown contrition, insight or remorse for their conduct;

(e) the need for general and specific deterrence, with a consideration as to whether the practitioner:

(i) has any evidence of rehabilitation;

(ii) is otherwise of good character; and

(iii) any co-operation with the disciplinary process and the regulator; and

(f) any other mitigating factors which are personal to the practitioner. Although it should be noted that personal matters such as shame, personal ordeal and financial difficulty are of little relevance save insofar as they contribute to specific deterrence of the practitioner.[5]

[32] In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal must also undertake a risk assessment of the practitioner, and in doing so, the practitioner's level of insight is a relevant consideration.[6]

[33] A reprimand is not a trivial penalty, and it represents a 'serious form of censure and condemnation.'[7]

[34] It is accepted by the tribunal that the respondent has demonstrated remorse as to his conduct. He has, subsequent to the conduct, completed further training. Additionally, the respondent plead guilty to the criminal proceedings and has not contested the current disciplinary proceeding. The material provided by way of references at his sentence show the Respondent has expressed remorse for his conduct.

[35] It is also noted that although no action was taken by the OHO, the Respondent was suspended with normal remuneration on 10 October 2023, and on 19 March 2025 was terminated from his employment. As such, although the Respondent was not formally suspended by OHO, the termination by QAS has resulted in a suspension from practice for a period of 17 months.

[36] General deterrence is always an important aspect of disciplinary proceedings. In the current matter it is accepted that it is important to denounce the Respondent's conduct and demonstrate to other health practitioners that acts of sexual assault are unacceptable, and that such behaviours may lead to significant sanctions.

[37] The Tribunal has had careful regard to the authorities referred to in the Applicant's written submissions, together with the submissions of both parties more generally. The Tribunal also notes the parties' agreement as to the sanction proposed. Having considered these matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that the agreed sanction is appropriate in the circumstances.

[38] The Tribunal thanks the assessors for their significant and thoughtful assistance in the determination of this referral.

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) ('HO Act') the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act the Respondent is reprimanded.
3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the Respondent's registration is suspended for a period of three (3) months.
4. There be no order as to costs.

[1] Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ('the National Law').

[2] Medical Board of Australia v Arulanandarajah (Review and Regulation) [2021] VCAT 85.

[3] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2023] QCA 96 at [45].

[4] Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376 at [91]- [93].

[5] Medical Board of Australia v Jansz [2011] VCAT 1026.

[6] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391 ('Lockie') at [71] citing Medical Board of Australia v Bromeley [2018] QCAT 163 at [142].

[7] Health Ombudsman v Bevins [2025] QCAT 102 at [55].