The respondent did not oppose the orders sought, other than to emphasise that the victim of the conduct was an adult undercover police officer and not a child.

• The nature of the offending is such that the Tribunal has no hesitation in agreeing that the conduct is professional misconduct and inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to practice medicine.
• Although the conduct did not take place in the course of his line of work, and, fortunately, he was caught by the police; the fact that he was clearly thought he was grooming a minor for sex is completely incompatible with the standards expected of a medical practitioner.
• Having reviewed the decisions in other cases, noting that the offending in this matter is serious, and that nothing of substance has been put by way of mitigation, disqualification periods of 7 years during which the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner and from providing any health service, is an appropriate sanction.

Health Practitioners - Complaint by the Medical Board of Australia - Professional misconduct - Conviction of communicating to make a child amenable to sexual activity - Reprimand, Registration cancelled, Disqualified from applying for registration for 7 years, and Prohibited from providing any health service for 7 years

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 ss 195, 196

Osteopathy Board of Australia v Ratliff [2021] VCAT 658

Chinese Medical Board of Australia v Zhou [2020] SACAT 23

Medical Board of Australia v Thomas [2021] VCAT 229

Psychology Board of Australia v Ferrero [2019] VCAT 1648

Medical Board of Australia v Lee [2019] SACAT 72

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia Rankine [2019] SACAT 57

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Paterson [2020] SACAT 22

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Monteduro [2020] SACAT 27

Pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 we prohibit the publication of the names of, or anything tending to identify, any witness who provided a statement in relation to the Respondent's conduct referred to in paragraphs 5 to 21 of the Statement of Agreed Facts dated 12 July 2021.

Made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 s 196(1)

1. This is an application by the applicant medical board seeking orders against the respondent pursuant to s 196 of the Health Practitioner Regulations National Law contained in Schedule 2 to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010.

2. The respondent, a trainee medical practitioner, working on a Temporary Work (Skilled) sub class 457 visa, plead guilty to, and was convicted of communicating to make a child amenable to sexual activity, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months.

3. The hearing was conducted 'on the papers' having regard to a Statement of Agreed Facts; the annexures to the Statement of Agreed Facts which include, amongst other things, the sentencing remarks of Judge Schammer of 9 June 2020 in the District Court and the Respondent's criminal record; and the written submissions of the parties.

4.1. Does not oppose the orders sought by the applicant;

4.2. Other than emphasise that the victim of the criminal conduct was an adult police officer and not a child, does not contest any of the facts alleged by the applicant, nor put any matters by way of mitigation.

5. We do not set out in full every paragraph of the statement of agreed facts or the decision of Judge Schammer but summarise the circumstances of the offence as follows. The respondent had a profile on an internet chat site and followed a number of hash tags on that site, including #SouthAustralianTeens and #AdelaideTeens. He sent a covert police officer a pornographic video; the covert police officer replied that she was a 13-year-old virgin; and the respondent continued to communicate with her in an overly sexualised way; and arranged a time and place to teach the recipient about sex. He sent her further pornographic material and pictures of himself. He engaged in communications which revealed that he knew what he was doing was illegal and told her not to tell anyone or text him without him texting her first.

6. The respondent was, at the time of the offending, 41 years old. He was of Indian background, working in Australia on a visa. He was married, with two children. He was selected to become an orthopaedic fellow; and needed to have his base degree in India recognised, which required him to work as a trainee medical officer in an area in need. At the time of his arrest, he worked as a trainee medical officer in Mount Gambier.

7. His visa has been cancelled. He is currently resident in the United Arab Emirates. He has served his term of imprisonment.

8. The nature of the offending is such that we have no hesitation in agreeing with the applicant that his conduct is professional misconduct. It is inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to practice medicine. It brings the medical profession into disrepute and is detrimental to the reputation of the medical profession, and otherwise reduces the confidence of the public in the medical profession. The conduct involves a deliberate attempt to exploit a child sexually in a way in which there is a power imbalance, and relates to a person who, in their role as a medical practitioner, could be expected to offer treatment to minors and other vulnerable persons. The public is entitled to the expectation that a person treating them will not have been involved in sexual misconduct with a minor, and that there is no risk of that person seeking to engage in such activity. Although the conduct did not take place in the course of his line of work, and, fortunately, he was caught by the police; the fact that he was clearly thought he was grooming a minor for sex is completely incompatible with the standards expected of a medical practitioner.

9. We consider it is appropriate to reprimand the respondent. A reprimand serves the role of telling the public, patients, and other health practitioners that the standards expected of a practitioner have not been met, and that the practitioner has been censured.

10. We consider it is appropriate to cancel the respondent's registration.

11. Section 196 of the National Law also allows the Tribunal to make orders disqualifying the person from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period and for prohibiting the respondent from providing any health service either permanently or for a stated period.

12. The applicant sought orders that those two periods of disqualification be for periods of 10 years each. Given the nature of the offending, and the lack of any real submissions in opposition to the application it was tempting to simply 'rubber stamp' the request. We were referred however to a number of decisions, including Osteopathy Board of Australia v Ratliff [2021] VCAT 658; Chinese Medical Board of Australia v Zhou [2020] SACAT 23; Medical Board of Australia v Thomas [2021] VCAT 229; Psychology Board of Australia v Ferrero [2019] VCAT 1648; Medical Board of Australia v Lee [2019] SACAT 72; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Rankine [2019] SACAT 57; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Paterson [2020] SACAT 22; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Monteduro [2020] SACAT 27. Practitioners in many of those cases have received less harsh sanctions than 10-year disqualifications or prohibitions for similar, and worse, offending.

13. We approach the matter on the basis that the imposition of the appropriate penalty is a matter for the Tribunal to determine; that in determining the appropriate penalty other cases do not necessarily set a 'going rate' or 'tariff' of penalties; that other cases do involve different facts; but nonetheless other cases involving analogous conduct give guidance in determining an appropriate sanction. Having reviewed the decisions in other cases, noting that the offending in this matter is serious, and that nothing of substance has been put by way of mitigation, we consider that disqualification periods of 7 years during which the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner and from providing any health service is an appropriate sanction, noting of course even if the respondent is eligible to apply in 7 years' time for registration, that application would need to be assessed on its merits before registration was granted.

14. Pursuant to s195 of the National law the Tribunal may make an order for costs. We agree with the applicant that it is appropriate to make an order for costs in favour of the applicant.

1. The Tribunal decides pursuant to s 196 (1) of the National Law that:

1.a. The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. The Tribunal imposes the following disciplinary action:

2.b. The registration of the practitioner is cancelled.

2.c. The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of 7 years from the date of this order.

2.d. The respondent is prohibited from providing any health service for a period of 7 years from the date of this order.

3. The respondent must pay the costs of the Board to be agreed or fixed by the Tribunal.

4. Pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 we prohibit the publication of the names of, or anything tending to identify, any witness who provided a statement in relation to the Respondent's conduct referred to in paragraphs 5 to 21 of the Statement of Agreed Facts dated 12 July 2021.