Health Ombudsman v Selfe [2025] QCAT 506

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

• [1] These disciplinary proceedings proceed on the papers on the basis of an amended referral filed 8 August 2025. The parties have filed a statement of agreed facts and there is no factual dispute between them.
• [2] The respondent first obtained registration as a registered nurse in New South Wales in 1987. Her registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia lapsed on 1 July 2025 because she chose not to renew it.
• [3] At all relevant times, she was practising as a registered nurse, Nurse Unit Manager, at the Nambour General Hospital ('Hospital').
• [4] The impugned conduct the subject of the amended referral occurred between 31 August 2021 and 25 July 2024, when she was aged between 56 and 60. She was born on 17 October 1964.
• [5] The respondent has no previous regulatory history.

• [6] Between 31 August 2021 and 25 July 2024, the respondent misappropriated five blank prescriptions from the Hospital. During that period, she forged the prescriptions to include the details necessary to enable diazepam to be dispensed to her. The respondent always listed the same doctor, who had previously treated the respondent for diabetes, as the prescriber.
• [7] The respondent included repeat prescriptions, and each forged prescription enabled multiple supplies of medicine for each supply.
• [8] On 24 occasions, she uttered those prescriptions at various pharmacies and on 23 occasions, she was dispensed 50 tablets of 5mg diazepam, that is, a total of 1,150 tablets.
• [9] On 25 July 2024, she presented a prescription dated 25 July 2024 for diazepam to a pharmacy on the Sunshine Coast which authorised further supplies. Because she had mistakenly stated that the prescription was for 10mg diazepam, the pharmacist became suspicious that the prescription was fraudulent and contacted the doctor who confirmed that she had not issued the prescription. The diazepam was not dispensed.
• [10] On 28 July 2024, the hospital service suspended the respondent's employment and notified the Office of the Health Ombudsman.
• [11] On 25 August 2024, the police charged her with 31 offences being one charge of stealing by clerks and servants, four charges of forgery, 25 charges of uttering a forged document and one charge of possessing a dangerous drug.
• [12] On 1 November 2024, the Health Ombudsman took immediate registration action by accepting the respondent's proffered undertaking not practise as a registered nurse.
• [13] On 29 November 2024, the respondent pleaded guilty to the offences in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court. A single fine of $3,000 was imposed and no conviction was recorded.

• [14] The conduct is very serious. The respondent was a mature person and an experienced nurse in a position of authority who stole blank prescriptions from her workplace and forged and uttered them to improperly obtain diazepam, inferentially, for her own use. The conduct occurred over a significant period of time. The conduct only ceased when a vigilant pharmacist suspected that a prescription presented by the respondent on 5 July 2024 was fraudulent because of an error in the prescription and consequently the pharmacist contacted the doctor, who confirmed she did not issue the prescription.
• [15] Her prolonged dishonesty involved a breach of trust from her employer from whom she stole the prescriptions forms, her treating doctor, and the pharmacists who she misled into supplying diazepam. Tribunals of this kind have consistently stressed the importance of honesty as being a fundamental component of professional ethics and practice.
• [16] The provision of scheduled substances in the community depends on pharmacists accepting the prescriptions they receive as valid. It is impractical for pharmacists to query every prescription they are asked to dispense when that prescription on its face bears no anomaly. The respondent's conduct has the potential to diminish public confidence in the rigour of the system responsible for drugs being safely prescribed and dispensed in the community.
• [17] The respondent's conduct satisfies the definition of professional misconduct set out in all limbs of the definition of that term in section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ('National Law').
• [18] I accept the submission made by the applicant that the admitted conduct involving significant dishonestly over a period of time by a highly credentialed nurse in a position of power was conduct that is inconsistent with being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a registered nurse.
• [19] The conduct as pleaded clearly offends a number of the relevant principles set out in the relevant codes of conduct and ethics that applied to the respondent in her practise as a registered nurse.
• [20] The Tribunal finds the respondent, by her admitted conduct, has engaged in professional misconduct.

• [21] Disciplinary proceedings are protective, not punitive. Public protection is achieved by determinations which address personal and general deterrence and maintain professional standards and public confidence. A practitioner may feel punished as an effect of the appropriate determination. Circumstances particular to the conduct before the Tribunal may be regarded as aggravating or mitigating that conduct.
• [22] The principle of general deterrence looms large in this particular case. The conduct of the respondent was linked directly to her practise as a registered nurse and her employment. It involved the misappropriation of blank prescriptions from her employer. The conduct went undetected for several years and was only detected when a discrepancy on the forged prescription aroused suspicion. As the applicant clearly notes in its written submissions, the conduct here by the respondent demonstrates that it would be relatively straightforward for other health practitioners to engage in similar conduct. Although there are many checks and balances in relation to the management and dispensation of dangerous drugs in the system, ultimately it devolves back to the honesty and ethics of health practitioners that are required to deal with these drugs on a daily basis. Accordingly, general deterrence is particularly relevant for this matter.
• [23] The respondent has cooperated both in the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding. It is not clear what motivated her conduct although it can be inferred she was using the diazepam herself. It is open to conclude she was engaging in this prolonged course of conduct as a result of personal health issues but far less clear if she has taken steps to rehabilitate herself or address any relevant personal circumstances that may have contributed to the conduct. As a result, although she has demonstrated insight, the level of that is unknown.
• [24] The cases referred to in applicant's submissions demonstrate the sanction sought is both sound and fair.
• [25] General deterrence, and upholding public confidence in a profession which stands at the apex of the health system in this country loom large as applicable principles in this case.
• [26] For those reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
  1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) ('HO Act'), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law.

1. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.
2. Pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for six (6) months from the date of the Tribunal's order.
3. Each party is to bear their own costs.