These proceedings concern the professional consequences, for cardiologist Dr Alexander Black, of the fact that on 6 May 2014 he pleaded guilty and was convicted of two charges of knowingly possessing child pornography, also known as child exploitation material - a range of images and movies found by police on two USBs, one kept in his office, and on computers at his home.
The police investigation arose from the finding of a USB on the floor of the hospital where Dr Black worked, by a visitor to the hospital. The USB contained child exploitation material and documents belonging to Dr Black, which led to the police executing search warrants at his office and home.
Taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, which we discuss below, the Magistrates' Court at Geelong did not impose a term of imprisonment. Instead, Dr Black was released on a two-year undertaking to be of good behaviour, the conditions of which included that he would receive psychiatric and psychological treatment for the term of the undertaking, and donate $20,000 to Barwon CASA (Centre Against Sexual Assault).
The Medical Board of Australia initiated these proceedings by filing an application to the Tribunal under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (the National Law). These proceedings are separate from the criminal proceedings and have a different purpose.
Our purpose is not to punish Dr Black. Our overall purpose is to protect the public, maintain the professional standards of the medical profession, and maintain the reputation of and public confidence in that profession.
Our task is to consider and make appropriate orders - determinations -about his registration and practice, taking into account the law and the particular circumstances in this case.
Dr Black agrees with the Medical Board that his conduct is professional misconduct within the meaning of that phrase in the National Law and he agrees that there should be certain consequences for his registration and practice as a medical practitioner.
Not surprisingly, there have already been profound personal and professional consequences for Dr Black.
Abhorrence that child exploitation material is produced at all, made available in the way it is, and possessed by anyone, let alone a medical practitioner is or ought to be a universal community value.
What is different in this case from other cases we were referred to where a professional has been found guilty of possessing child exploitation material, is that Dr Black was himself a victim of molestation as a child. He was drawn to the material not for any reason of sexual gratification but out of a distorted preoccupation with the experience of sexual molestation, in the context of the psychological consequences and harm caused by his own experience as a child.
Further, in the opinion of experts in such matters, Dr Black:
is not a paedophile;
is at low risk of re-offending (ever again seeking out and possessing child pornography);
is at zero risk of a contact offence;
through the treatment he has sought and continues to receive has developed insight into the personal factors that contributed to his offending; and
is slowly overcoming the specific symptoms of trauma and depression related to his experience as a child, assisted in part by reporting the abuse he suffered and giving evidence at the Victorian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse in 2013.
Dr Black has also accepted and cooperated with the criminal and professional disciplinary processes. He recognised himself that he needed help well before the events giving rise to the charges, seeking assistance and treatment from a psychiatrist from 2011 onwards. He made full admissions to the police and reported himself to the Board soon after the charges were laid. He agreed to suspend his practice for a period of nine months in 2014. He admitted the allegations made by the Board in these proceedings.
We set out in detail below the agreed facts, legal principles, the submissions made by the parties in this proceeding, and our consideration of the appropriate outcome.
For the reasons we give, although we have imposed a longer review period than that proposed by the parties, we have accepted the jointly proposed orders that:
Dr Black be reprimanded - which is in itself a serious form of censure,
his registration be suspended, and
on his return to practice after the suspension he be subject to protective conditions including confining his practice to adult patients.
We turn now to the agreed facts.
[2]
The following are the facts as agreed between the parties:
Background to referral
[3]
1.1 Dr Alexander Black is a specialist cardiologist who was in charge of the cardiology department at the Geelong Hospital at the time of the conduct referred to below.
[4]
1.2 On 5 and 6 December 2013 Victoria Police executed search warrants upon Dr Black's office at the Geelong Hospital and upon his residence. At each a quantity of child exploitation material, including children engaging in sexual activity, was found.
[5]
1.3 On 10 December 2013 Dr Black notified the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) of an investigation into a breach of the Geelong Hospital's Code of Conduct.
[6]
1.4 On 13 March 2014, Dr Black was charged with five counts of possessing images and movies constituting child exploitation material. The conduct that was the subject of the charges was said to have occurred between November 2012 and December 2013.
[7]
1.5 On 21 March 2014, Dr Black notified AHPRA of the charges.
[8]
1.6 On 3 April 2014, the Immediate Action Committee (IAC) of the Victorian Board of the Medical Board of Australia (VMBA) proposed to take immediate action in the form of a suspension of Dr Black's registration pursuant to section 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Vic) (National Law).
[9]
1.7 Also on 3 April 2014, Dr Black signed an undertaking that he would not practise medicine until the immediate action process was concluded.
[10]
1.8 On 10 April 2014, the IAC considered Dr Black's submissions and decided not to take immediate action on the basis that it was unable to form a reasonable belief that Dr Black posed a serious risk to other persons and therefore it was not necessary to take immediate action at that time.
[11]
1.9 On 6 May 2014, in the Magistrates' Court at Geelong, Dr Black pleaded guilty and was convicted with respect to two charges of knowingly possessing child pornography. He was released on a 2 year undertaking to be of good behaviour, the conditions of which included that he would receive psychiatric and psychological treatment for the duration of the undertaking and donate $20,000 to Barwon CASA.
[12]
1.10 While the Court considered both an immediate term of imprisonment and a Community Corrections Order, it determined each to be inappropriate in the circumstances of the case.
[13]
1.11 Consequent upon the conviction, and as was required by law, Dr Black's name was placed on the sex offenders register, in respect of which he is required to report for a period of 15 years.
[14]
1.12 By letter dated 7 May 2014, Dr Black notified AHPRA of his conviction.
[15]
1.13 On 20 August 2015 the VMBA decided to refer the matter of Dr Black's professional conduct to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal).
[16]
2.1 The material that was in Dr Black's possession comprised, in total, 45 images and 67 movies containing child exploitation material, including material depicting children engaged in sexual activity.
[17]
2.2 Some of this material was contained on a USB found by a person attending the Geelong Hospital birthing unit and later handed to police. Further such material was subsequently located by Police on a USB in Dr Black's office at the Geelong Hospital and on a computer tower, a desktop computer and a laptop at Dr Black's home.
[18]
2.3 Dr Black subsequently pleaded guilty to the charges of possession of child pornography at the earliest available opportunity.
[19]
Relevant psychiatric and psychological reports
[20]
3.1 Dr Black's treating psychiatrist, Dr Peter Churven, provided reports regarding Dr Black on 20 January 2014 and 11 December 2015.
[21]
3.2 At paragraph 2.2 of his 2014 report, Dr Churven discusses his diagnosis of Dr Black's chronic adjustment disorder with depressed mood, which, in Dr Churven's assessment, arises in part from Dr Black's chronic stress due to confusion and concerns about his preoccupation with the effects of his experience of sexual molestation and the nature of his resultant interest in prepubertal boys of the age he was when he was abused. Dr Churven does not consider that Dr Black properly fulfils the criteria for paedophilic disorder.
[22]
3.3 The sexual molestation to which Dr Churven refers is reported by Dr Black as having occurred to him when he was aged 10 or 11. Dr Black reported this sexual abuse to the Victorian Royal Commission into institutional child abuse in May 2013 and gave evidence at its hearings in November 2013.
[23]
3.4 At paragraph 2.5 of his 2014 report, Dr Churven says that he does not consider that Dr Black constitutes a threat to public health or safety.
[24]
3.5 At paragraph 1.2 of his 2015 report Dr Churven opines that Dr Black's distress over his previous sexual confusion about prepubertal boys and interest in images of them arising out of his own abuse - previously a source of his adjustment disorder- had resolved.
[25]
3.6 At paragraph 1.3 of that report Dr Churven indicates that Dr Black now understood and acknowledged the wrongfulness of his conduct, saying: "His understanding has further developed to the point that he recognises that by viewing images he was inadvertently contributing to a potential 'market' for pornographic images of children even though he had at no time attempted to pay for or solicit images for himself." At paragraph 2.2 of that report Dr Churven opines that Dr Black will never re-offend.
[26]
3.7 At paragraph 2.3 of the 2015 report Dr Churven indicates he expects Dr Black to continue seeing him in the short term to supervise his ceasing anti-depressant medication, after which "he will hopefully no longer need therapy".
[27]
3.8 Mr Patrick Newton has conducted two psychological assessments of Dr Black and provided reports on 6 April 2014 and 13 December 2015.
[28]
3.9 In his 2014 report Mr Newton expressed the opinion that Dr Black has a long-standing depressive mood disturbance that has its genesis in his childhood sexual abuse and which has troubled him for much of his adult life. He also said that at that point in time Dr Black had an unequivocal need for continued treatment. At paragraphs 36 and 39 of his report, Mr Newton notes that further treatment for Dr Black would provide a genuine protective benefit, as will any deterrent and/or supervisory aspects associated with the legal process, and that further reassurance could be achieved by ensuring that Dr Black's practice is limited to adult patients.
[29]
3.10 Mr Newton reported that Dr Black expressed to him a deep sense of remorse and shame for his conduct. He felt that Dr Black was a low risk of re-offending. He said that this should be considered to constitute a "maximum level" of risk in Dr Black's case.
[30]
3.11 Dr Black has also at his own instigation attended treatment sessions since March 2014 with the Sex Offender Treatment Program. The reports of Dr Matthew Barth, a psychologist with that program and colleague of Mr Newton, indicate that Dr Black has been a committed and engaged participant.
[31]
3.12 In his 2015 report Mr Newton indicates that Dr Barth had said that Dr Black had made excellent progress in the program. Mr Newton opines that Dr Black exhibits highly developed insight into the personal factors that had contributed to his offending, and had developed and implemented a detailed and specific relapse prevention plan. Mr Newton notes that Dr Black had undertaken extensive work to resolve his specific symptoms of trauma and depression.
[32]
3.13 Mr Newton opines at paragraph 23 of this report that Dr Black will not need any further mandated treatment once the period of treatment ordered by the Magistrates' Court concludes in April 2016, although they could continue to assist Dr Black with ongoing consultation if this were deemed desirable or necessary.
[33]
3.14 Mr Newton also opines at paragraphs 25 and 29 that Dr Black's risk of re-offending has fallen since 2014 and may now be accurately considered as low.
[34]
Dr Black submitted letters from professional colleagues attesting to his skill as a cardiologist, his teaching and research, the clinical services he has provided over many years to the Geelong community including establishing the cardiology unit at the Geelong Hospital, and his ongoing importance to the community as a cardiologist.
[35]
The Board alleged that, in the period from on or about a date in November 2012 until on or about a date in December 2013, Dr Black engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of section 5 of the National Law.
Dr Black admits that he engaged in the conduct as alleged and he acknowledges that his conduct constitutes professional misconduct.
After submissions by Counsel at the hearing as to whether the conduct fell within one or more of the paragraphs in the definition, we made findings that the conduct constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law:
[36]
(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
[37]
(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
[38]
(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.
[39]
We include (a) and (b) because, although the definition of 'unprofessional conduct' in paragraph 5 of the National Law principally concerns conduct within the profession and in a professional capacity, it also includes:
[40]
the conviction of the practitioner for an offence under another Act, the nature of which may affect the practitioner's suitability to continue to practise the profession
[41]
Further, this is not a case where the conduct occurred entirely outside the professional context. Dr Black brought the USBs containing the material to the hospital where he worked: one of the USBs was found by a visitor on the floor, the other was found by police in Dr Black's office.
[42]
The parties jointly submitted that an appropriate determination would be the following:
Dr Black's registration is suspended for a period of three months with effect from the date of this Order.
Dr Black is reprimanded.
The following conditions, the cost of which are to be met by Dr Black, are imposed upon Dr Black's registration:
Health condition:
(i) Dr Black will continue treatment with his psychiatrist at a frequency to be determined by the treating psychiatrist.
(ii) Dr Black will authorise the treating psychiatrist referred to in (i) above and the Victorian Board of the Medical Board of Australia (Board) to communicate about his condition and to ensure the Board receives a report from the treating psychiatrist every six months.
[43]
The review period for this condition is one year from the date of this Order.
[44]
Practice condition:
(i) Dr Black is not permitted to provide consultation and/or treatment to any person under the age of 18 years other than in a case of a medical emergency.
(ii) Dr Black is to provide a statutory declaration to the Board, at or before one year on from the date of this order and again at or before two years on from the date of the order, to indicate his compliance with the condition that he not provide consultation and/or treatment to any person under the age of 18 years other than in the case of a medical emergency.
[45]
The review period for this condition is one year from the date of this Order.
[46]
In considering the appropriate determination we have taken into account the written and oral submissions of the parties.
[47]
The purpose of the imposition of determinations in disciplinary matters is protective not punitive. The objective of any determination is primarily the protection of the public and the maintenance of professional standards in the eyes of the public.[1]
As Doyle CJ expressed it in Craig v Medical Practitioners Board:[2]
[48]
A disciplinary tribunal protects the public by making orders which will prevent persons who are unfit to practise from practising, or by making orders which secure the maintenance of proper professional standards
[49]
Considerations of specific deterrence (deterring the specific practitioner from repeating the conduct) and general deterrence (deterring other practitioners from engaging in the conduct) are factors to be taken into account in assessing what protection of the public may require.
The task of the Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings is well described by Cosgrove J in Dickens v Law Society:[3]
[50]
There is high authority for the proposition that the powers given to the disciplinary committee to discipline a practitioner are entirely protective in character. No element of punishment is involved... But to say that is merely to say that the powers are to be exercised for the purpose of, and in a manner seen likely to achieve, the maintenance of that high standard of conduct within the profession which will continue its good reputation, and protect, not only the future of the profession, but also protect its clients from harm.
[51]
With this object in mind, the committee is required to look to the future. Even if the practitioner's misconduct be relatively slight, he may yet be struck off, if his capacities and attitude have been revealed to be such that his continuance in practice constitutes a threat to the profession. On the other hand, conduct which is itself more grave in nature, may not warrant striking off, if it is seen as a temporary and explicable departure from the practitioner's own high standards... The order which the committee is called upon to make is that order which, in its opinion, is necessary, and no more than is necessary, to maintain professional discipline and high standards of conduct.
[52]
The risk of repetition of misconduct is an important factor for the Tribunal to consider.[4]
The degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight into his or her conduct is also an important factor to take into account: it is relevant to the continuing risk posed by the practitioner.[5]
As observed by the Tribunal in Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Grolaux [No. 2][6]
[53]
In context, this "insight" might be reflected in a variety of ways, such as an understanding of the nature of the conduct, an acceptance that the conduct was seriously wrong, an appreciation of why the practitioner engaged in that conduct, empathy with the consequences, and/or the willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and to avoid similar behaviour.
[54]
Every case will be different. The nature of the offending conduct, the particular circumstances of the practitioner, the context of the offending and its duration, and the risk of repetition are all factors which will rarely be identical in any two cases.[7]
We note, as submitted, the observations made by the Tribunal in Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Kaur[8] about the importance of consistency. The relevant remarks at [68] are best set out in full:
[55]
It is essential to a disciplinary system conducted according to the rule of law that dispositions display a measure of consistency with one another. They must not vary according to the personal traits of Tribunal or panel members much less the whims of the day. Nevertheless each disciplinary matter turns upon its own particular facts. None of the matters urged upon us as providing guidance on disposition exactly corresponds with the facts that are before us in this proceeding. This is unsurprising. Nor are any of them in our view so close that it would be appropriate to start with the disposition in that matter and apply some standard adjustment to cater for the present.
[56]
We agree with the submission that possession of child pornography by a medical practitioner constitutes very serious professional misconduct.
We note and paraphrase the remarks made by the sentencing Magistrate in Dr Black's case[9] that possession of child pornography involves many victims. Child exploitation material involves young children being overborne by adults who subject them to degrading and distressing experiences, which necessarily impact on their development, self-esteem and happiness. And, we add, their very prospects of survival into functional adulthood. That it is produced at all, and possessed by anyone, is abhorrent and to be universally condemned.
We were referred to the decision in Re: Dr Abraham Stephanopoulos [2006] MPBV 12, where a panel of the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria dealt with a practitioner who downloaded and stored large amounts of child pornography. The panel observed, at [3]:
[57]
'These are very serious adverse findings. The conduct of Dr Stephanopoulos is abhorrent from the perspective of contemporary community values. Although he did not pay for the images that he collected and although he procured them from free sites on the Internet, by his addiction to such material between March and June 2003 he provided encouragement to the producers and purveyors of illegal material that violates the innocence of children. As a consumer of their product, he has taken his place in the chain of their criminality.'
[58]
We agree with the panel's observations at [150] that:
[59]
'...any conviction for child pornography against a registered medical practitioner is a matter of grave concern because it involves such a fundamental breach of patients' trust in doctors and inevitably brings the profession into significant disrepute.
[60]
In simple terms, a conviction of a doctor for possession of child pornography shakes community faith and trust in the medical profession.
[61]
The weight to be given to the proposed determinations
[62]
As noted above, the parties jointly proposed that the Tribunal:
reprimand Dr Black;
impose a health condition upon Dr Black's registration;
impose a practice condition upon Dr Black's registration; and
impose a suspension.
The Board submitted that the Tribunal should adopt the proposed recommendation, as being within 'the permissible range', referring to the decision of Ross J in Secretary to the Department of Planning and Community Development v Muto[2011] VCAT 328.
Muto was a decision of Ross J in his capacity as the then President of the Tribunal. In that case, His Honour was considering the appropriate penalty for alleged misconduct by a councillor under the Local Government Act1989. Both parties were represented by counsel.
In Muto, Ross J stated that he proposed to adopt the approach taken in civil penalties cases, that provided an agreed penalty is within the permissable range having regard to all the circumstances, the Court should not depart from the agreed sanction.[10]
We note that Ross J also stated at the commencement of the relevant section of the decision that:
[63]
Ultimately the question of the appropriate penalty in a particular case is a matter for the Tribunal, though the consent of the parties is clearly a significant consideration.[11]
[64]
With respect, we agree that it is ultimately a matter for the Tribunal what orders are made, although the consent of the parties is a significant consideration. Further, it is ultimately a matter for the Tribunal to evaluate comparable cases and decide what the 'permissible range' might be having regard to all the circumstances. We refer to and repeat the observations of the Tribunal in Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Kaur set out in full at [33] above.
Nevertheless, an agreement of the parties obviously has weight in the Tribunal's consideration of the appropriate determinations; more so, in our view, where both parties are represented by experienced legal practitioners.
[65]
In this case we have given weight to the determinations jointly proposed by the parties and make the determinations with one variation: we have imposed a longer review period on the health and practice conditions to reflect the need, in our view, to allow the conditions to operate for a longer period before any formal review of them.
As submitted, a reprimand marks the strong disapproval of the Tribunal of Dr Black's conduct and sends a message to Dr Black, to other members of the profession, and to the public that such conduct will have serious consequences. For professionals, any form of official censure is of consequence.
A formal reprimand is not a mere 'slap over the wrist'. As Marks J observed in Peeke v Medical Board of Victoria,[12] a reprimand, being a serious form of censure and condemnation, 'certainly does not trivialise a serious lapse of professional standards, and has the potential for serious adverse implications for the medical practitioner'.
The proposed health condition, that Dr Black continue treatment and authorise his psychiatrist to communicate with and report to the Board, is designed to address Dr Black's underlying health condition - a chronic adjustment disorder with depressed mood.
We accept that the treatment has had a positive effect on Dr Black, and the condition will have the important protective effect of reducing any likelihood of repetition of the conduct.
The proposed practice condition, restricting Dr Black's practice to adult patients, is also protective and provides the further reassurance to which psychologist, Mr Patrick Newton, referred in his psychological assessment of Dr Black (6 April 2014).
We considered carefully whether Dr Black's registration should be suspended or cancelled. Where a medical practitioner has been convicted of possessing child pornography it is highly likely that one or the other will come under consideration.
In Honey v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria[13] the Tribunal discussed the difference between the determinations of suspension and cancellation:
[66]
The major difference between a suspension and cancellation is that once the doctor's registration is cancelled, he must reapply after the period specified. It is not guaranteed that he will be so re-registered. He must satisfy the Board that registration is appropriate and that he fulfils the qualifications for general registration...
[67]
Cancellation of registration sends a clear message of unsuitability to practice. Suspension may be thought to indicate confidence in the doctor's future ability to practice once the period of suspension is served.
[68]
There are some cases in which it is abundantly clear that deregistration is the only option available to protect the public from a miscreant doctor.
[69]
This is apparent in situations in which the practitioner does not accept the inappropriateness of his conduct or has been shown to be a serial offender.
[70]
The following factors weigh against cancellation in this case:
Dr Black self-reported to the Board, made early admissions in both the criminal and the disciplinary proceedings and cooperated with the Board, indicating insight and remorse. He voluntarily resigned from his posts at the hospital where he worked.
He self-identified his serious problems and sought counselling and treatment at an early stage.
Since the conduct became the subject of police investigation, there has been no suggestion that Dr Black has repeated the conduct. Because the Immediate Action Committee of the Board decided not to suspend his registration in the meantime, apart from a period out of practice that he imposed on himself Dr Black has continued to practice medicine in a limited way, and has done so without incident.
Dr Black's treating psychiatrist, Dr Churven, has expressed the view that Dr Black's patients are not at risk.
He is unlikely to reoffend.
Cancellation would go further than is necessary in this case to maintain professional discipline and high standards of conduct.
Provided he can do so safely, there is a public interest in Dr Black continuing to practise as a cardiologist, which needs to be weighed in the balance of considerations in protecting the public. [14]
We consider, however, that a suspension is warranted for the following reasons:
Dr Black's conduct is very serious conduct; a period of suspension is warranted in the interests of general deterrence and maintaining public confidence in the profession.
His conduct was not a one-off lapse but was engaged in over a period of time.
Although he has shown insight and remorse, his conduct warrants a significant penalty.
Although he deserves credit for seeking counselling in respect of the effects of the abuse he suffered as a child and his interest in sexual images of prepubertal boys, the offending occurred after he had already received a period of counselling: this is of some concern.
A period of suspension is necessary in our view, but no more than necessary in this case, to maintain professional discipline and high standards of conduct.
We note, in the interests of comparison, that in the matter of Dr Stephanopoulos, the panel found that Dr Stephanopoulos had engaged in professional misconduct under the Medical Practice Act 1994 in respect of convictions for knowingly possessing child pornography. Dr Stephanopoulos, unlike Dr Black, received a sentence of suspended imprisonment from the Court. The panel imposed conditions on Dr Stephanopoulos' registration and a suspension of six months.
We note also the decisions referred to by counsel for Dr Black, in particular:
Medical Board of Australia v Bonney,[15] which concerned a GP convicted of one count of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, who was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment but released on a good behaviour bond subject to supervision. The QCAT in that case imposed detailed and extensive conditions, including formal chaperonage of any patients under 18, maintenance of a chaperonage register and psychiatric treatment but allowed the doctor to continue to practise.
Health Care Complaints Commission v Simring,[16] which concerned a practitioner convicted of three charges involving thousands of images, who received a suspended sentence of nine months' imprisonment. The Medical Tribunal imposed detailed conditions but allowed the doctor to continue to practise.
We consider that the proposed suspension period of three months is appropriate in this case. We have delayed it taking effect for two weeks to enable Dr Black to arrange an orderly hand over of his patients to other practitioners.
[71]
[1]Ha v Pharmacy Board of Victoria[2002] VSC 322 at paragraph [91] and [97] followed in Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Grolaux (No. 2) (Occupational and Business Regulation)[2009] VCAT 978; Health Care Complaints Commission v Lichfield[1997] NSWSC 297; (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 at 637.
[72]
[2][2001] SASC 169 at [41]; See also Honey v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2007] VCAT 526 (30 March 2007).
[73]
[3] Unreported, Supreme Court of Tasmania. See also Chiropractic Board of Australia v Hooper[2013] VCAT 1346 at [22].
[7] Principles of parity should not override the need to consider the unique facts and circumstances of the case at hand - Dental Practice Board of Victoria v Dr Hassed[2006] VSC 485 per Hargrave J.
[78]
[8][2010] VCAT 374, DP Macnamara Presiding, Mr B. Collopy, Member and Dr P. Molloy, Member.
[79]
[9] Transcript of Magistrate Coghlan's sentencing remarks Tribunal Book p.98.
[80]
[10] '....that where a regulatory body and a respondent have reached a negotiated settlement and the penalty proposed is, broadly speaking, within the 'permissible range' (having regard to all the circumstances) the court (or in this case the Tribunal) should not depart from the agreed sanction'. [2011] VCAT 328 at para [16].
[81]
[12] (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, No 10170 of 1993, 19 January 1993)
[82]
[13][2007] VCAT 526 at paragraphs 41 to 61; see also Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Kaur[2010] VCAT 364 (17 March 2010); Sherman v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria[2000] VCAT 456 (29 January 2000).
[83]
[14]Buttsworth v Walton, unreported, NSWCA (19 December 1991); Honey v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria[2007] VCAT 526 (30 March 2007).