Health Ombudsman v Serone [2026] QCAT 51

[2] The Referral relates to Jay Mason Serone ('Respondent'), a registered nurse, pursuant to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ('National Law'). The Referral relates to one allegation, arising from an incident which occurred at a Queensland Children's Hospital ('the Hospital') Christmas Party at Port Office Hotel on 18 November 2022.

[3] The parties signed a statement of agreed facts ('SOAF') which were filed with the Tribunal on 26 August 2025. On 19 December 2025, legal representatives for the Respondent informed the Tribunal, by email, that they accept the characterisation of the conduct as sought by the Applicant, accept the sanction sought by the Applicant, and the Respondent sought to make no further submissions.

[4] On 7 November 2025, the Applicant informed the Tribunal by email that the parties were agreeable to the matter being heard and determined on the papers. Further confirmation that the parties were agreeable to the matter being dealt with on the papers was provided in an email from the Respondent's legal representatives on 19 December 2025. As such, pursuant to section 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.

[5] On 31 December 2015, the Respondent was first granted registration by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia ('the Board'), as a registered nurse. At all times material to the allegation the subject of the Referral the Respondent remained a registered nurse. The Respondent was aged 33 years of age at the time of the conduct and is now 36 years of age.

[6] The Respondent has not previously been the subject of any notifications to the Office of the Health Ombudsman ('the OHO') nor Australia Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('AHPRA').

[7] No immediate action was taken against the Respondent and the Respondent remains registered with no conditions attached to his registration.

[8] The referral relates to one incident which occurred on 18 November 2022.

[10] At the time of the conduct, Ms D was employed by the Hospital as an Administrative Officer. The Respondent was also employed by the Hospital. Ms D and the Respondent met through work, and had a good working relationship, with Ms D considered a friend of the Respondent.

[11] On 18 November 2022, both Ms D and the Respondent attended the Hospital's Christmas Party at the Port Office Hotel in Brisbane.

[12] Ms D arrived at the party at approximately 7:30pm and had consumed two to three alcoholic ciders prior to arriving and continued consuming alcohol throughout the evening.

[13] The Respondent arrived at the party later than Ms D. He had consumed approximately two alcoholic ciders prior to attending the party and consumed two cocktails upon arrival. The Respondent continued drinking throughout the evening and was noted to have become heavily intoxicated.

[14] At approximately 10:30pm, the Respondent and Ms D were seated on a two-seater couch on an outside balcony. The Respondent was sitting on the couch with his eyes half closed.

(a) Ms D asked another partygoer who was also seated outside to get a glass of water for the Respondent;

(b) The Respondent then began rubbing Ms D's lower back with his hand, whilst Ms D and the Respondent engaged in conversation;

(c) The Respondent then moved his hand to lift Ms D's dress and put his hand under her underwear and directly on her bottom.

(d) The Respondent groped Ms D's bottom for approximately two seconds before she realised what was happening and pulled the Respondent's hand out and pushed his shoulder, causing him to flop onto the other side of the couch.

[16] After the incident, Ms D left to go to the bathroom whilst upset. She immediately reported it to a work colleague, and informed her colleague she did not give the Respondent consent to touch her.

[17] Prior to and after the incident, witnesses reported seeing the Respondent heavily intoxicated and vomiting. The Respondent was ultimately assisted to an Uber by work colleagues, as he was unable to arrange an Uber himself.

[18] Due to the Respondent's level of intoxication, he does not recall the incident but does not dispute that he inappropriately touched Ms D on her back and on her bottom.

[19] On 24 November 2022, Ms D reported the incident to her line managers, and an investigation was undertaken which substantiated the allegation against the Respondent. On 23 June 2023, as a result of the investigation, the Hospital and Health Service took the following action against the Respondent:

(a) placed a restriction on performing higher duty roles for a period of 12 months, including early cessation of his higher duties contract as a Clinical Nurse within the Hospital; and

(b) a forfeiture of one remuneration increment for a period of 12 months.

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

[21] 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.

[22] The Tribunal accepts that the conduct of the Respondent is conduct that can be characterised as professional misconduct, namely that the conduct of the Respondent was substantially below that reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. As submitted by the Applicant, the Respondent's breach of professional boundaries at a workplace function undermines workplace safety and public confidence in the profession.

[23] Having decided that the practitioner 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 through to cancellation of registration'.[1]

[24] Turning then to the appropriate sanction, the parties' agreed position as to sanction is as follows:

(a) a finding that, pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) HO Act the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;

(b) pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act the Respondent is reprimanded; and

(c) there be no order as to costs.

[25] It is noted that 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.[2]

[26] The considerations of the Tribunal on a disciplinary referral are well established and include:[3]

(a) preventing practitioners who are unfit to practice from practicing;

(b) ensuring the practitioner comprehends the seriousness of their conduct;

(c) deterring the practitioner or others who might be minded to act in a similar way from future departure from appropriate standards; and

(d) imposing restrictions on the practitioner's right to practice to ensure public protection.

[27] 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.[4]

[28] Other matters relevant to the Tribunal's consideration of an appropriate sanction include:

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

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

(c) 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

(d) any other mitigating factors which are personal to the practitioner.

[29] A reprimand is not a trivial penalty, and it represents a 'serious form of censure and condemnation.'[5]

[30] It is accepted by the Tribunal that the Respondent has demonstrated genuine insight and remorse as to his conduct. Between July 2025 and August 2025, the Respondent completed a tailored education plan, focussed on professionalism, boundaries and sexual harassment.

[31] The facilitator of the program reported that the Respondent demonstrated genuine insight and remorse, including recognition that intent is not required for behaviour to constitute harassment and an understanding of the need to assess power imbalances in the workplace.

[32] Additionally, the Respondent has shown remorse by admitting the conduct and appropriately engaging and cooperating during the disciplinary process.

[33] In respect of specific deterrence, it is accepted that it is of less significance in respect of this matter, given the level of insight shown by the Respondent, coupled with his proactive rehabilitative efforts. There is no evidence of ongoing risk to the public or likelihood of recurrence.

[34] General deterrence is an important consideration in disciplinary proceedings. Its purpose is to convey to other practitioners that conduct of this kind is unacceptable. It also serves to underscore that such behaviour has the potential to erode public confidence in the nursing profession. It is accepted that the reprimand as sought by the parties achieves the protective purpose of disciplinary proceedings, whilst also sending a message to the nursing and broader health professions that physical boundary violations, including those involving colleagues, are unacceptable.

[35] Having regard to the cases the Tribunal was taken to in the written submissions of the Applicant, coupled with the written submissions as a whole; and the agreement between the parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the agreed sanction sought by the parties is the appropriate sanction in the circumstances.

[36] The Tribunal thanks the assessors for their assistance in the determination of this referral.

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) the Respondent is reprimanded.
3. Each party bears its own costs of the proceeding.

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

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

[3] Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545 at 553-555.

[4] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391 at [71] citing Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163 at [142].

[5] Health Ombudsman v Bevins [2025] QCAT 102 at [55] citing Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Jones (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 498.