The Tribunal finds the allegations to be proven where the respondent did not contest them in these proceeding and the respondent was previously convicted of the conduct subject to the allegations in the Supreme Court under the Controlled Substances Act 1984. A failure to provide the nominated practice information is considered to be a serious matter in these circumstances where this information assists AHPRA in its duty to monitor the respondent's compliance with the undertaking to not practice as a medical practitioner.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and thereby the Tribunal was unable to assess the respondent's degree of insight into his conduct.

Held, finding professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct, and imposing sanctions:

• Ground 1 is characterised as professional misconduct;
• Ground 2 is characterised as unprofessional conduct;
• The respondent is reprimanded;
• The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of three years;
• The respondent is prohibited from providing any health services and from using the title "doctor" until re-registered as a health practitioner;
• The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Health practitioners - Complaint by the Medical Board of Australia - Unprofessional conduct - Professional Misconduct - Dishonestly procuring controlled drugs for personal use - Failure to provide nominated practice information - Disqualified from applying for registration for three years - Prohibited from providing health services and from using the title 'doctor' until re-registration - Reprimand - Costs order

Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 30

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 Sch 2 ss 5, 132, 195, 196, 225

1. The respondent was served with a notice of hearing but did not attend. He previously had solicitors acting for him, but they had ceased to act prior to the full hearing. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
2. The application sets out the particulars of matters alleged against the respondent while he was practising as a medical practitioner. It is alleged that the respondent behaved in a manner that constitutes professional misconduct in Ground 1 and unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct in Ground 2.
3. Evidence was contained in the Book of Documents which we received. The respondent did not contest the allegations. We remind ourselves that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, but taking account of the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences of any findings.
4. We find the allegations in the application proved. We now set out details of our findings as to the conduct of the respondent.
5. The respondent was born in July 1982 and achieved his Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery in 2008. He first obtained general registration as a medical practitioner in August 2008. He worked as a medical practitioner in Renmark, South Australia.

1. On 9 December 2022, the respondent notified the Medical Board of Australia (Board) that he had been charged with one count of forge and utter prescription in contravention of s 30(1) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). This charge was in fact a representative charge relating to 43 instances of issuing forged prescriptions to himself between 27 September 2021 and 30 November 2022 (the period).
2. On 12 June 2022, the respondent signed an undertaking not to practice as a medical practitioner in accordance with s 225 of Schedule 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (National Law). This undertaking was accepted by the Board on 11 April 2023.
3. On 29 March 2023, the respondent entered a plea of guilty to the one representative count of forging a prescription to obtain for himself pharmaceutical medicines which can only be accessed by prescription. This plea encompassed the 43 separate occasions that the respondent had accessed prescribed software of other medical practitioners at the clinic where he worked in order to prescribe for himself.
4. On 5 October 2023, he was convicted of that charge and sentenced to six months imprisonment reduced to three months and 19 days on account of his guilty plea, which was suspended upon him entering a good behaviour bond in the amount of $1,000 for a period of 18 months.
5. He appealed to the Supreme Court against the sentence, but this appeal was dismissed.
6. Particulars of the offending are as follows. During the period, which was just over one year and two months, the respondent accessed the prescription generating software known as Medical Director of fellow medical practitioners to prescribe himself opioid based medications on 43 occasions.
7. During this time, the respondent had a health condition in that he had been diagnosed with a major depressive episode in 2008, having been diagnosed with major depression in 2007. Following a career setback in 2018, he spiralled into a significant depression requiring a period of remission to recover. He re-entered into the general practice pathway and commenced working as a GP registrar in 2021.
8. He developed a dependence on opioid medication which progressively worsened, and he became addicted to them.[1]
9. His health condition deteriorated following a relocation to Renmark in 2021 where he was socially isolated, and his symptoms of anxiety and depression increased.
10. The respondent's conduct referred to above was contrary to the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) and was also inconsistent with the relevant code of practice.
11. We have no hesitation in finding that the conduct above constituted professional misconduct.

1. Section 132 of the National Law requires that a health practitioner must not fail to provide, when asked, nominated practice information including information about whether they are practicing and, if so, details of where, unless there is a reasonable excuse.
2. On 21 June 2024, a notice to provide his practice information was issued by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) to the respondent with his response required by 5 July 2024. The respondent did not respond to the notice until 7 April 2025 when the practice information was provided by his legal representative. It indicated that he had not been practising. It is accepted that this was correct.
3. This failure to provide information does not appear to have been done by the respondent with a view to concealing any activity by himself. Rather it was simply a failure to provide information that he was obliged to give within the required time.
4. The respondent was subject to various stressful matters in his life at the time, and this most likely caused him to not deal with the issue. We find that the failure was not merely due to oversight, but was done knowing that the information should have been provided.
5. The failure is a serious matter because AHPRA had a duty to monitor his compliance with the undertaking not to practice, and the requirement to provide the information was done for this purpose.
6. We find that this conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct. It is conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of a health practitioner by the public or the practitioner's professional peers. We find that the conduct was more serious than unsatisfactory professional performance.
7. We find that the conduct in Ground 2 was not such that it is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession. Whilst the conduct was below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner it was not substantially below the standard reasonably expected.

1. The activities comprising Ground 1 occurred over a significant period of time and were marked by repeated departures from the standards required of medical practitioners. The respondent exploited his position as a medical practitioner and misused the privileges and responsibilities attached to his right to prescribe. He also breached the trust of his employer and colleagues by using their accounts to access prescribing software in order to issue prescription drugs for his own use.
2. The conduct of the respondent was inconsistent with various provisions of the Code of Conduct including requirements to look after his own health and wellbeing, engage in self-reflection, seek independent objective advice when medical care is needed for himself and being aware of the risks of self-diagnosis and self-treatment.
3. Self-treatment, as occurred in this case, raises a risk to patients treated by the respondent in that his self-treatment could adversely affect his judgment and performance with regard to treating patients. There is no evidence in this case that this occurred, but the risk was present.
4. The fact that the respondent failed to complete and return the form referred to in Ground 2 for a significant period, and the fact that he has not attended the hearing in this matter means that the Tribunal is unable to assess whether or not the respondent has insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct, and whether or not he has a plan or intention to overcome his difficulties to become fit to practise as a medical practitioner.
5. We have decided to disqualify the respondent from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of three years. At the end of that period, if the respondent does apply for registration, there will be a very real question as to whether he would then be a fit and proper person to be registered.
6. We note that the respondent has not renewed his registration as a medical practitioner in September of this year. It is therefore not possible for this Tribunal to cancel the respondent's registration.
7. We have considered all of the evidence and decided to order the following sanctions.

1. The Tribunal finds pursuant to s 196(1)(b) of the National Law, the respondent has behaved in a way that:
   1. Constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of s 5 of the National Law in relation to the conduct described in Ground 1 of the Amended Initiating Application filed by the applicant on 16 October 2025; and
   2. Constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of s 5 of the National Law in relation to the conduct described in Ground 2 of the Amended Initiating Application filed by the applicant on 16 October 2025.
2. The respondent is reprimanded pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law.
3. The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of three years pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law.
4. The respondent is prohibited from providing, whether as an employee, contractor, manager or volunteer, and whether directly or indirectly, any health service and from using the title "doctor" or "Dr" until he is granted a registration as a health practitioner under the National Law pursuant to s 196(4)(b) of the National Law.
5. The respondent must pay the applicant's costs to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to s 195 of the National Law.