The respondent did not attend the hearing, nor did he submit a response to the Initiating Application or the Amended Initiating Application that was filed (with leave) after the hearing (ground 2 not pursued).

The Tribunal was satisfied that the evidence provided by the Board in relation to ground 1 establishes professional misconduct. The evidence before the Tribunal in relation to ground 3 established unprofessional conduct. With regard to ground 4, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence before it that the respondent's behaviour fell into a pattern of conduct that is inconsistent with the health practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration. However, the respondent's disciplinary history with the applicant was relevant when considering the question of penalty.

Held, finding the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct and imposing sanctions:

• The respondent is reprimanded;
• The respondent's registration is cancelled;
• The respondent is, until granted registration, prohibited from providing other health services; and
• The respondent must pay the costs of the applicant to be agreed or fixed by the Tribunal.

Health practitioners - Complaint by the Medical Board of Australia - Professional misconduct - Unprofessional Conduct - Inappropriate patient management and care - Reprimand - Registration cancelled

Health practitioners - Complaint by the Medical Board of Australia Unprofessional Conduct - Failure to comply with notices - Reprimand - Registration cancelled

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 ss 1, 2, 5, 193, 196

South Australian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 60

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Some of the parties and participants of the proceedings have been further de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

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

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 60

1. The Medical Board of Australia ("the Board") has referred this matter to the Tribunal pursuant to Schedule 2, s 193(1) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 ("the National Law").
2. The matter was heard by the panel on 1 August 2025. The respondent did not attend. Subsequent to the hearing, the Board was granted leave to amend the Initiating Application. The respondent did not reply either to the application to amend or to the Amended Initiating Application filed on 21 August 2025.

1. There are three grounds on which the referral to the Tribunal has been made, as set out in the Amended Initiating Application. They are (with anonymised patient initials):

Ground 1 - On 13 July 2021, the respondent failed to provide good care to a patient (PGY) by making statements ("PGY Statements") to her during a medical consultation ("PGY Consultation") to the effect that:

(a) he did not recommend PGY be vaccinated for the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19);

(b) COVID-19 had been completely blown out of proportion by the media and manipulated by the government;

(c) PGY should not believe what she was being told by the media and should instead consider certain printed and online information the respondent showed to her during the PGY Consultation about the number of 'real COVID deaths';

(d) face masks had no medical purpose and were a 'fashion statement';

(e) COVID-19 vaccines were 'experimental DNA manipulating vaccines' that PGY should not put in her body;

(f) Bill Gates thinks there are too many people on Earth, and PGY should draw her own conclusions from that as to why Mr Gates funded COVID-19 vaccines.

_Former Ground 2 was not pursued in the Amended Initiating Application.

Ground 3 - The respondent has contravened s 2 of Schedule 5 to the National Law by failing, without reasonable excuse, to:_

(a) attend before an investigator to answer the questions stated in written notices issued to the respondent under s 1(b) of Schedule 5 to the National Law on 29 June 2023, 4 July 2023 and 12 July 2023 (collectively, Attendance Notices);

(b) give stated information to an investigator within the time and in the way stated in a written notice issued to the respondent under s 1(a) of Schedule 5 to the National Law on 6 December 2023 (Information Notice).

Ground 4 - The behaviour alleged in Allegations 1-3 of this [Amended] Initiating Application forms part of a broader pattern of conduct or practice of the respondent that is unprofessional and inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

1. The respondent did not file a Response to the Initiating Application or to the Amended Initiating Application.

1. The Amended Initiating Application sets out in paragraph A the following practitioner details for the respondent, which the Tribunal accepts as being correct:

A2. was awarded a Bachelor of Medicine / Bachelor of Surgery degree in 1994 by the Flinders University of South Australia;

A3. was first registered to practice as a medical practitioner on 20 December 1993;

A4. has been registered with the Board under the National Law since 1 July 2010;

A5. currently holds general registration with the Board, which was suspended by the Board under s 156(1)(a) of the National Law on 24 September 2021;

A6. practised as a general practitioner at all relevant times at [a suburban medical centre in Adelaide] (Clinic).

Ground 1 - failure to appropriately advise patient about COVID-19 vaccinations

1. The pleaded particulars in support of Allegation 1 as set out in the Amended Initiating Application are:

(b) was a patient of the respondent at all relevant times;

(c) attended the PGY Consultation at the Clinic on 13 July 2021 for the primary purpose of obtaining repeat prescriptions.

1.2 At the time of the PGY Consultation, the Clinic was a vaccination location for the purposes of the COVID-19 Policy, and it was possible for PGY to obtain a free COVID-19 vaccination there.

1.3 During the PGY Consultation, the respondent printed prescriptions for PGY.

1.4 Towards the end of the PGY Consultation, PGY asked the respondent about COVID-19 vaccinations, and the respondent responded by making the PGY Statements (as set out in paragraph 3 of the Tribunal decision above).

1.5 PGY attempted to leave the respondent's consulting room while he was making the PGY Statements, but the respondent picked up and held her prescriptions and PGY felt compelled to wait for the respondent to finish what he was saying.

1.6 The respondent did not adequately document the advice he provided to PGY during the PGY Consultation about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccinations or the use of face masks.

1.7 The respondent did not inform PGY at any time during the PGY Consultation that his personal opinions about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccinations did not align with the medical profession's generally held views.

1.8 PGY was concerned by the PGY Statements and the potential for the respondent to discourage other people from receiving a vaccination for COVID-19.

1.9 On 14 July 2021, PGY made a notification to AHPRA (PGY Notification) setting out her concerns about the respondent's alleged behaviour during the PGY Consultation.

1.10 PGY returned to the Clinic on 21 July 2021 and saw a different practitioner who administered a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccination.

1.11 However, PGY did not feel comfortable about returning to the Clinic after the PGY Statements were made, and she now goes to a different medical practice if she needs medical care.

1.12 On 23 September 2021, AHPRA received a document (PGY Response) from the respondent:

(a) stating that, 'as a rule', the respondent does not talk to patients about COVID-19 unless they ask him about it as it is not relevant to the consultation;

(b) admitting he spoke to PGY about COVID-19, but claiming he told PGY he was not giving the COVID-19 vaccinations to his patients but other practitioners in the Clinic were;

(c) admitting that he provided PGY with what he described as 'some statistical data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' and some details on 'adverse effects' from a 'UK government site';

(d) claiming he provided that information to PGY to help her decide '... what is the right thing for them to do (informed consent)' and that: '... The decision is theirs as they are the ones whom must sign the consent form. With the information provided by the media alone it is unlikely that people will be able to make truly informed consent';

(e) attaching a document in .pdf format containing what the respondent described as '... Statistical information regarding the effectiveness of mask wearing ... '.

1.13 On 11 April 2022, PGY signed a written statement ("PGY Statement") setting out her recollections of what occurred during the PGY Consultation.

1.14 On 14 April 2024, Dr Jillian Gardner prepared a report ("First Gardner Report") expressing her opinions to the effect that:

(a) it would be incorrect to conclude that the risks of COVID-19 were exaggerated by the media (at p 8, [1st line]);

(b) masks had a significantly beneficial effect in reducing the spread of COVID-19 infection (p 8, [b]);

(c) it was hard to comprehend that the deaths associated with COVID-19 were exaggerated (p 8, [c]);

(d) it would be against [3.2.8] of the Code of Conduct developed and approved by the Board under s 39 of the National Law entitled: 'Good medical practice: a Code of Conduct for doctors in Australia' ("Code") to suggest '... conspiracy theories regarding Covid-19 vaccinations and Bill Gates' (at p 9, [d]);

(e) under [7.4] of the Code, doctors have a responsibility to promote the health of the community through disease prevention and control (at p 9, [e]);

(f) if the respondent advised PGY:

(a) COVID-19 risks were exaggerated by the media;

(b) masks served no purpose in relation to COVID-19;

(c) the number of deaths associated with COVID-19 were exaggerated;

(d) the development of a COVID-19 vaccine was funded by Bill Gates because he thought there were too many humans; or

(e) PGY should not be vaccinated against COVID-19, then any such advice would:

(ii) not be based on 'scientific evidence (p 10, [5(b)]);

(iii) undermine the national vaccination campaign and contravene the provisions of the Code in relation to public health (p 11, [5(c)]);

(g) if the respondent behaved in the way Dr Gardner was asked to assume when she prepared the First Gardner Report, then Dr Gardner would consider such behaviour to be substantially below the standard expected from a medical practitioner with the Respondent's level of training and experience (p 11, [6]).

1.15 In view of the matters particularised at [1.1]-[1.14] above, the respondent failed to (adequately or at all):

(a) protect and promote the health of PGY and the broader Australian community (contrary to [2.1] of the Code);

(b) maintain adequate records of his discussion with PGY and the information he provided to PGY during the PGY Consultation about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccinations and the use of face masks (contrary to [3.2.3] and [10.5.1] of the Code);

(c) consider the balance of benefit and harm when deciding what to advise PGY in response to her enquiry about vaccinations (contrary to [3.2.4] of the Code);

(d) explain the treatment options available to PGY based on the best available information (despite the COVID-19 Position Statement and contrary to [3.2.6] of the Code);

(e) inform PGY that his personal opinions about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccinations and the use of face masks did not align with the medical profession's generally held views (despite the COVID-19 Position Statement and contrary to [3.2.8 of the Code);

(f) ensure that his personal views did not adversely affect the care he provided to PGY (contrary to [3.2.14] of the Code);

(g) discuss with PGY the potential benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccination in addition to any potential for harm or material risks (contrary to [4.3.4] of the Code);

(h) promote the health of the community through disease prevention and control by participating in the Australian Government's and Board's efforts to promote the health of the Australian community through the implementation of the COVID-19 Policy (despite the COVID-19 Position Statement and contrary to [7.4.2] of the Code).

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the PGY Statement signed by her on 11 April 2022. The Tribunal accepts the facts set out in the PGY Statement. The Tribunal is satisfied that paragraphs 1.1 - 1.11 and 1.13 of the Amended Initiating Application are made out by the Board.
2. The Tribunal has had regard to the report by Dr Jillian Gardner dated 14 April 2024 and referred to by the Board as the First Gardner Report. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr Gardner as set out in the First Gardner Report. The Tribunal is satisfied that paragraph 1.14 of the Amended Initiating Application is made out by the Board.
3. The Tribunal is satisfied that paragraph 1.15 of the Amended Initiating Application is made out by the Board.
4. Professional misconduct is defined in s 5 of the National Law in limb (a) as 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. The Tribunal has accepted the evidence of Dr Gardner that she would consider the respondent's behaviour to be substantially below the standard expected from a medical practitioner with the respondent's level of training and experience. The Tribunal is also of the view that the respondent's behaviour as set out in paragraphs 1.3 - 1.7 of the Amended Initiating Application constitutes professional misconduct because it was unprofessional conduct by the respondent 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. In particular, the Tribunal is concerned that the respondent did not comply with the Code in numerous ways as set out in paragraph 1.15 of the Amended Initiating Application and further did not comply with the COVID-19 Position Statement published by the Board as set out in paragraphs 1.15(e) and 1.15(h) of the Amended Initiating Application.
5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent was provided with the material lodged by the Board in the Tribunal and that the respondent had adequate opportunity to inform the Tribunal of any responses that he might have to that material and specifically to the allegations made in the Amended Initiating Application and prior to that, in the Initiating Application. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate for it to proceed despite not having received any responses from the respondent and despite the respondent's absence from the full hearing on 1 August 2025.

Ground 3 - failure to comply with notices issued under Sch 5 of National Law

1. The pleaded particulars in support of Allegation 3 as set out in the Amended Initiating Application are:

3.1 The Respondent refers to and repeats the particulars about Allegation 1 at [1.1]-[1.12].

3.2 On 22 December 2020, AHPRA received a notification ("LZG Notification") alleging that:

(a) a patient (LZG) discontinued her mental health medications in '2018' [sic] after receiving advice from the respondent that the medications were not helpful and that her mental health condition was related to a 'spiritual attack';

(b) the discontinuance of mental health medications in 2018 caused a relapse;

(c) LZG recently reconnected with the respondent and reported that he allegedly advises her that her symptoms are related to an 'attack by the devil' and provides religious quotes to substantiate this;

(d) LZG reported strong concerns about mental health admissions (and getting 'locked up forever' or given 'shock therapy') that she reportedly attributed to advice given to her by the respondent.

3.3 A psychiatrist named Dr Jayakrishnan Nair created a Clinical Record on the same day as the LZG Notification noting:

(a) he had completed a notification to AHPRA about the respondent after discussions with several other health practitioners;

(b) the decision to make the notification was based on multiple reports from LZG and her partner that the respondent had been advising LZG that he allegedly does not believe in 'mental health dx' and that LZG's symptoms are related to a 'spiritual attack';

(c) LZG's current presentation is related to a relapse of Bipolar Affective Disorder, but she firmly believes this is related to an attack by the 'devil' and she reports her conversations with the respondent as evidence for this;

(d) the respondent allegedly asked LZG to 'stop meds' and non-compliance was the reason for the relapse leading to Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit admission in 2018;

(e) LZG reports that the respondent no longer tells her to 'stop meds' but has lengthy conversations about spiritual concerns;

(f) LZG reports that appointments sometimes go on for an hour;

(g) previously the respondent was contacting LZG on her mobile phone, but her partner has 'removed this number';

(h) he is of the opinion that the respondent's advice is not in keeping with his professional role and has detrimentally impacted on LZG's mental health;

(i) when he spoke to the respondent by phone 'today' to clarify, the respondent reported he may have told LZG 'antipsychotics are frequently used to calm and sedate people' and: '... When asked regarding religious themes he said "I listen to her. She will tell you about our conversations. Are you anti-religious?".'

3.4 On 23 April 2021, AHPRA received an email from the respondent asking it to forward an attached document entitled 'Final Reflection 00445748, 00455139, 00457439' ("Final Reflection Document") to the Board most relevantly stating:

(a) the LZG Notification was 'far from the truth' and although he could ignore it, it really should be exposed for what it is so the Board can learn from their mistakes;

(b) he treated LZG for over a three year period and she had come to him as no one else believed her including her psychiatrist Dr Nair;

(c) LZG was a member of a spiritualistic church, and spent considerable time involved with occultic activities unaware that it was divination and that it opens oneself up to the influence of the demonic spiritual world;

(d) it does not surprise him that a psychiatrist can't comprehend these things as their profession denies the existence of God and the spiritual world;

(e) Dr Nair told LZG to 'stay away from Christians and from Dr Moore' after the respondent wrote to him in August 2020;

(f) he has been informed since LZG's admission to Lyell McEwen Hospital that Dr Nair and a group of psychiatrists have 'borne false testimony' about the respondent;

(g) Dr Nair has also 'lied' to LZG saying he had spoken to the respondent when he had most certainly not spoken to him;

(h) Dr Nair had done this so as to turn LZG away from the respondent;

(i) it doesn't surprise him for some 'fraudulent allegations' to be raised from an anonymous doctor at Lyell McEwen Hospital;

(j) the fact the Board had not allowed him to see a phone transcript and had yet 'given heed to this fraudulent allegation' was because it was 'hopelessly bias[ed]' in its assessment process;

(k) to go along with mentoring when you have been 'falsely accused' is 'ridiculous';

(l) he would therefore not be doing any mentoring as he knows complaints made about him (including the LZG Notification) are 'false' and that is his 'final reflection'.

3.5 On 29 June 2023, an AHPRA investigator named Nik Aitken ("Investigator") issued a written notice ("June 2023 Notice") to the respondent under s 1(b) of Schedule 5 to the National Law requiring him to attend before him on 11 July 2023 to answer the following questions:

1. Whether you promoted, disseminated, distributed and/or communicated evidence-based practices when providing information about COVID-19 at Montague Farm Medical Centre to [PGY] on 13 July 2021.
2. Whether you maintained professional boundaries with [LZG] between 11 May 2020 and 3 December 2020 at Montague Farm Medical Centre when providing your personal beliefs on religion and mental health treatment options.
3. Whether your conduct demonstrates a pattern of conduct in that, despite previous regulatory action, you continue to:
   1. inappropriately share your personal beliefs with patients and/or
   2. provide information to patients that is not supported by the best available evidence.

3.6 The June 2023 Notice included the following 'Warning': Failure to attend without reasonable excuse, is an offence under the National Law and penalties may apply (Schedule 5, Part 1, Clause 2(1) of the National Law).

3.7 On 29 June 2023, the Investigator sent a letter to the respondent enclosing the June 2023 Notice together with an extract of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the National Law.

3.8 On 4 July 2023, the Investigator sent an email to the respondent confirming they had to reschedule the attendance referred to in the June 2023 Notice and attaching a letter dated 4 July 2023 together with a written notice issued on 4 July 2023 (First July 2023 Notice) and a copy of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the National Law.

3.9 The First July 2023 Notice required the respondent to attend before the Investigator on 12 July 2023 instead of 11 July 2023, but was otherwise relevantly identical to the June 2023 Notice and contained the same questions and warning as the June 2023 Notice.

3.10 The respondent did not attend before the Investigator on 12 July 2023 as required by the First July 2023 Notice or provide any excuse or reason for his non-attendance.

3.11 On 12 July 2023, the Investigator sent an email to the respondent attaching a letter dated 12 July 2023 together with a written notice issued on 12 July 2023 (Second July 2023 Notice) and a copy of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the National Law.

3.12 The Second July 2023 Notice required the respondent to attend before the Investigator on 26 July 2023, but was otherwise relevantly identical to the June 2023 Notice and contained the same questions and warning as the June 2023 Notice.

3.13 On 20 July 2023, AHPRA received an email attaching a letter from the respondent stating he '... will be unable to attend before an investigator on Wednesday 26th July 2023' without providing any excuse or explanation as to why he was unable to attend.

3.14 The respondent did not attend before the Investigator on 26 July 2023.

3.15 On 2 August 2023, AHPRA received a letter (Schedule 5 Response Letter) from the respondent stating:

Dear Fearful Nik

1. Further to your letter dated 12th July 2023, wherein you refer to the following:

2. ON ADVICE, no such quoted Legislation exists.

3. As such your letter will be treated as functus officio, and this matter is terminated and expired, forthwith.

4. ANY FURTHER communication or correspondence will attract my "Schedule of Fees", as for matters of expediency, I have decided to waive any fees on this occasion, in lieu of your ignorance of your position.

5. Should your office communicate with me again, I will refer this matter to my solicitors, and raise an Invoice for the costs, charges and indulgence I have incurred on this occasion. For your information, the amount waived on this occasion is $3,873-17. ...

PS: I refer your office specifically to the Summary Offences Act (SA) and more particularly to the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and finally in particular to the provisions of the HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) ACT 2010 - which ONLY contains 83 Sections [original emphasis].

3.16 On 6 December 2023, the Investigator issued a written notice ("Information Notice") to the respondent under s 1(b) of Schedule 5 to the National Law requiring him to provide a detailed response to several questions relating to the behaviour alleged in Allegations 1-2 of this Initiating Application.

3.17 The respondent has not complied with, or responded to, the Information Notice.

3.18 The respondent's failure to comply with the Attendance Notices or the Information Notice has made it more difficult for AHPRA and the Board to properly conduct and complete their investigations into the behaviour alleged in Allegations 1-2 of this Initiating Application.

3.19 In view of the matters particularised at [3.1]-[3.14] above:

(a) the respondent's ongoing failure to comply with the Information or Attendance Notices contravenes s 2 of Schedule 5 to the National Law;

(b) the Schedule 5 Response Letter does not provide any reasonable excuse for the respondent's failure to comply with the Information or Attendance Notices;

(c) the tone and content of the Schedule 5 Response Letter is unprofessional and inconsistent with:

(i) the professional obligations referred to in [10.11.1]-[10.11.2] of the Code;

(ii) the respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the medical profession.

1. The first question for the Tribunal that arises from Ground 3 is whether the respondent failed without reasonable excuse to attend before an investigator on 12 July 2023 and 26 July 2023.
2. The notice to the respondent to attend before an investigator on 12 July 2023 was issued on 4 July 2023. The location for the attendance was stated in the notice as "via Microsoft Teams (a link will be sent to you to join the meeting once attendance is confirmed)". There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the respondent was ever sent a link to enable him to attend before the Investigator in the manner provided for by the notice, that is, by Microsoft Teams.
3. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the respondent failed without reasonable excuse to attend before an investigator on 12 July 2023 via Microsoft Teams when there is no evidence that the respondent had been provided with the necessary means to attend, namely the electronic link on which he could click in order to join the meeting. It was open to the Investigator to provide the necessary link at the same time as providing the Notice to Attend Before an Investigator. He did not do so. It was never going to be possible for the respondent to attend without being provided with a link. It is the same situation as if he had been required to attend in person but was not provided with the address at which to attend. There is no requirement in Schedule 5 of the National Law that a person must confirm their attendance when they receive a Notice to Attend Before an Investigator. The obligation under [10.11.1] of the Code to cooperate with an investigation does not extend to having to confirm such attendance. If the Investigator did not provide the respondent with a link enabling him to attend the interview scheduled for 12 July 2023, that was a failure entirely of the Investigator's own making. The applicant has the onus of establishing its case and the applicant has not satisfied the Tribunal that the necessary link was provided to the respondent to enable him to attend the Microsoft Teams interview.
4. The notice to the respondent to attend before an investigator on 26 July 2023 was issued on 12 July 2023. The location for the attendance was once again stated in the notice as "via Microsoft Teams (a link will be sent to you to join the meeting once attendance is confirmed)". Once again there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the respondent was ever sent a link to enable him to attend before the Investigator in the manner provided for by the notice. On 20 July 2023 the respondent wrote to the Investigator, apparently by post, saying "I will be unable to attend before an investigator Wednesday 26th July 2023". The Investigator responded by email dated 20 July 2023 asking the respondent to provide dates on which he would be available. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the respondent ever provided any dates on which he would be available.
5. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the respondent failed without reasonable excuse to attend before an investigator on 26 July 2023. Firstly, as with the interview scheduled for 12 July 2023 the respondent was never going to be able to attend without being provided with a link to enable him to do so. There is no evidence that such a link was provided to him. Secondly, the Investigator's email dated 20 July 2023 asking the respondent to provide dates on which he would be available gave no indication that the interview would remain scheduled for 26 July 2023 unless the respondent provided the alternative dates. It is a reasonable interpretation of the Investigator's email dated 20 July 2023 that the Investigator had accepted the respondent's non-availability for interview on 26 July 2023.
6. The second question for the Tribunal that arises from Ground 3 is whether the respondent failed without reasonable excuse to provide information to an investigator pursuant to the Notice to Produce Information issued to him on 6 December 2023. That notice sought information from the respondent by 20 December 2023, either by email or by post or by online file sharing. There is no evidence of any reply by the respondent to the Notice to Produce Information.
7. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Investigator had power pursuant to Schedule 5 clause 1(a) for the purposes of conducting an investigation, by written notice given to the respondent, to require the respondent to give information to the Investigator within a stated reasonable time and in a stated reasonable way. The Tribunal is satisfied that the notice of 6 December 2023 provided a reasonable time and way for the requested information to be provided.
8. Schedule 5 clause 2 provides "A person required to give stated information to an investigator under clause 1(a) must not fail, without reasonable excuse, to give the information as required by the notice". The respondent did not provide the information requested and did not contact the Applicant about the Notice to Produce Information. There is nothing to suggest that the respondent had any reasonable excuse not to comply with the Notice to Produce Information. The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent failed without reasonable excuse to provide information to an investigator pursuant to the Notice to Produce Information issued to him on 6 December 2023. This failure constituted a contravention of schedule 5 clause 2 of the National Law as alleged by the applicant.
9. Contravention by a practitioner of the National Law constitutes unprofessional conduct by virtue of limb (a) of the definition of unprofessional conduct in Schedule 2 clause 5 of the National Law. In relation to Ground 3 of the Amended Initiating Application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has established one instance of unprofessional conduct by the respondent, namely his failure to provide information to an investigator pursuant to a Notice to Produce Information. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the respondent's failure to attend before an investigator on 12 and/or 26 July 2023 constituted unprofessional conduct by the respondent.

Ground 4 - pattern of conduct or practice of the respondent

1. The pleaded particulars in support of Allegation 4 as set out in the Amended Initiating Application are:

4.1 On 24 September 2017, AHPRA received a notification ("2017 Notification") alleging that the respondent had refused to complete a Centrelink Work Capacity form, refused to refer a patient to a new psychologist, and made irrelevant and inflammatory statements about Christianity to the patient who was dressed in a full hijab.

4.2 On 22 January 2018, the Board made a decision ("2018 Caution Decision") to caution the respondent and stated in the reasons provided to the Respondent by AHPRA:

Your counsel on matters relating to the benefits of living in Australian society and issues of faith may have been well-intentioned however, section 8.2 of the [Code] states that good medical practice involves avoiding expressing personal beliefs to patients in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.

4.3 On 16 August 2018 AHPRA received a notification ("2018 Notification") alleging that the respondent dismissed a patient's anxiety, trivialised concerns about her mental health, spoke to her in an insensitive manner, and accused her of trying to 'abuse the system'.

4.4 On 10 January 2019, the Board made a decision ("2019 Conditions Decision") to impose conditions ("2019 Conditions") on the respondent's registration requiring him to successfully complete a program of education, including a reflective practice report, in relation to communication with patients.

4.5 On 5 August 2019 and 17 July 2019, AHPRA received notifications ("2019 Certificate Notifications") alleging that the respondent refused to provide medical certificates to two separate patients and contacted one of the patients' employer without their permission resulting in them being suspended from work.

4.6 On 5 September 2019, AHPRA received a notification ("2019 Bipolar Notification") alleging that the respondent refused to issue a prescription for a patient and stated that bipolar was something the patient could choose to overcome.

4.7 On 19 February 2020, the Board made a decision ("2020 NFA Decision") to take no further action in response to the 2019 Bipolar Notification as the respondent had completed education with respect to communication with patients and there was insufficient evidence to substantiate that his performance had fallen below the standard reasonably expected or that the safety of the public was placed at risk.

4.8 On 30 June 2020, AHPRA received a notification ("2020 MHCP Notification") alleging that the respondent refused to provide a mental health care plan ("MHCP") to a patient and commented that he could not be certain they were not trying to get a Centrelink hand out.

4.9 On 5 August 2020, the Board made a decision ("2020 Conditions Decision") to impose conditions ("2020 Conditions") on the respondent's registration requiring him to undergo mentoring ("Mentoring") on working within evidence-based practice, being aware of one's own beliefs and keeping these separate in both face-to-face interactions and on social media.

4.10 On 20 November 2020, AHPRA received a notification ("JHI Notification") from a patient (JHI) alleging that:

(a) she attended the Clinic for a consultation ("JHI Consultation") with the respondent at 3:45pm on 17 November 2000 [sic] to obtain a prescription for her asthma medication;

(b) the respondent stated to her 'firstly, you can take that mask off' and, when she explained she was awaiting a COVID-19 test, the respondent stated: 'oh it's all a waste of time anyway' and proceeded to express views including that if you're healthy and strong you'll never die from the virus, you'll never get the virus, that he did not believe the number of people dying from the virus was true, and that it was 'fake news';

(c) the JHI Consultation took far longer than it should have as the respondent was expressing his views on the state of the world, his religious views, and his view that COVID-19 is not real;

(d) JHI advised the respondent during the JHI Consultation that he should not be expressing such views during a consultation and should be following health advice.

4.11 On 7 December 2020, AHPRA sent a letter ("JHI Notification Letter") to the respondent enclosing a copy of the JHI Notification and inviting him to comment on:

(a) whether he maintained professional boundaries with JHI;

(b) whether he communicated accurate information relating to COVID-19;

(c) whether he shared his religious views during his consultation with JHI;

(d) the principles referred to in [2.2], [3.2.8], [4.8], [7.4] and [10.2.3] of the Code.

4.12 On 11 December 2020, the Board refused the respondent's nomination of a person to act as his mentor for the purposes of the Mentoring required by the 2020 Conditions.

4.13 On 15 December 2020, AHPRA received a document ("JHI Response") from the respondent responding to the JHI Notification Letter and:

(a) admitting he told JHI she could take her mask off during the JHI Consultation;

(b) stating JHI told him in her own words that she 'knew she didn't have the virus';

(c) referring to some attached 'Australian Bureau of Statistics data regarding Covid-19 deaths in Australia upto [sic] 31/8/20 that I share with patients as per the newsGP articles I receive' and stating:

... It is quite obvious that the public are trying to comply with whats [sic] being asked of them for the supposed good of the community however they are not being provided balanced factual information through the media. It is a nonsense when people who know themselves to be perfectly well as [JHI] did have to go and wait 4 hours in a line to get tested for a test which is normal due to political and bureaucratic meddling in medicine. I am seeing a number of patients whom are presenting whom have neither epidemiological or clinical features of covid requesting a test as their boss has told them so. So testing is not being driven by science rather by political and media influence and by fear ...

(d) admitting JHI told him during the JHI Consultation that she was an atheist and stating that she possibly told him that in response to his:

...lament regarding the decline in Australia and America and the wonderful freedoms we have had due to our constitution that acknowledges God as the source of blessing that we are now losing. It is being replaced with an Orwellian form of government. Lock downs, curfews, irrational mask wearing routines, over testing, tracking, compulsory immunisation if you want to travel, loss of freedom of speech. etc etc. I have a few patients that are atheist and we get along well and we have some good conversations despite our different view points. They keep coming to me because they know I care. I wouldn't expect anything less from [JHI]. I hope [JHI] is a religiously tolerant person ...

(e) denying he said 'Jesus is walking the earth' and stating 'This is not my words and it's an incorrect statement' before setting out a detailed statement of some of his religious beliefs together with Biblical references he considered to support them.

4.14 On 22 February 2021, AHPRA sent an email to the respondent attaching a redacted copy of the LZG Notification and a letter ("LZG Notification Letter") confirming the Board had decided to conduct an investigation into the respondent's:

(a) Clinical Care - inadequate or inappropriate treatment; and

(b) Communication - insensitive or inappropriate comments.

(a) made a decision ("JHI Decision") to take no further action in response to the JHI Notification as it had already taken action by imposing the 2020 Conditions requiring the respondent to undergo the Mentoring, and he had not yet had the benefit of receiving the Mentoring to enable reflection and demonstrate a change in his conduct;

(b) stated in its reasons for the JHI Decision that '... should the Board receive further notifications after [the respondent] has completed the required period of mentoring it will be open to the Board to consider further, more serious action'.

4.16 On 9 March 2021, AHPRA sent an email to the respondent attaching a letter ("JHI Decision Letter") confirming the JHI Decision, providing the Board's reasons, and stating:

You have not yet had the benefit of receiving mentoring to enable reflection and demonstrate a change to your conduct. Should the board receive further notifications after you have completed the required period of mentoring it will be open to the Board to consider further, more serious, action.

4.17 On 23 April 2021, AHPRA received an email from the respondent attaching the Final Reflection Document most relevantly stating:

(a) JHI, like much of the public, was under informed regarding COVID-19 because of a lack of balanced information in the media 'hence her confusion';

(b) JHI did raise concerns with his receptionist, but she was in agreement with the respondent regarding the media coverage and mask wearing routines;

(c) now that some of the side effects of the 'genetic vaccines' are coming to light, hopefully people will ask questions;

(d) the claim made by JHI that the respondent had laughed at her and imposed his religious views on her was '... simply a fairy tale' and: '... Which of the two [ie JHI or an AHPRA officer who had a telephone discussion with the respondent about the JHI Notification] or both have an anti-Christian sentiment I don't know nor is it important to me but it is clear to me that religious intolerance is on the rise. Even the code of conduct s 4.8 doesn't condone this';

(e) the matters particularised at [2.14] above, which the Board refers to and repeats here.

4.18 Despite his obligation to comply with the 2020 Conditions, and despite what is stated in the LZG Notification Letter of 22 February 2021, the JHI Decision Letter of 9 March 2021, and the COVID-19 Position Statement of 9 March 2021, the respondent engaged in the behaviour alleged in Allegation 1 of this Initiating Application at the PGY Consultation on 13 July 2021.

4.19 On 2 August 2021, the Board proposed to take action in relation to the respondent's ongoing non-compliance with the 2020 Conditions by failing to nominate an appropriate mentor.

4.20 On 27 August 2021, the Board cautioned the respondent for failing to nominate an appropriate mentor to conduct the Mentoring required by the 2020 Conditions.

4.21 On 23 September 2021, AHPRA received the PGY Response stating:

(a) the matters particularised at [1.12] above, which the respondent refers to and repeats here;

(b) that he was open to speak with a mentor, but that the Board is apparently concerned about balancing his 'strongly held religious views' and that:

... It would be best if they provided a list of specific topics they want discussed as I don't have any concerns of my own in this area. Finding a suitably qualified mentor may be a problem ... .

4.22 On 24 September 2021, the Board took immediate action under s 156(1)(a) of the National Law by suspending the respondent's registration as a medical practitioner due to his ongoing failure to nominate an appropriate mentor to conduct the Mentoring.

4.23 In view of the matters particularised at [4.1]-[4.22] above, the behaviour alleged in Allegations 1-3 of this Initiating Application forms part of a broader pattern of conduct or practice of the Respondent that is inconsistent with the respondent's professional obligations to:

(a) provide good care to, and communicate effectively with, patients in the manner required by [2.1], [3.2.5], [3.2.6], [3.2.8], [3.2.14], [3.4.6] and [3.4.7] of the Code;

(b) promote the health of the community through disease prevention and control in the manner required by [7.4.1] and [7.4.2];

(c) adequately maintain professional boundaries with patients in the manner required by [10.2.1]-[10.2.3] of the Code;

(d) cooperate with any legitimate inquiry into the treatment of his patients and any complaints procedure that applies to his work as required by [10.11.1]-[10.11.2].

4.24 Further, and in the alternative, the Board has a reasonable belief that the fact that the respondent had already been subjected to the disciplinary action particularised at [4.1] to [4.22] above before he engaged in the conduct alleged in Allegations 1 and 3 of this Initiating Application is an aggravating feature that ought to be taken into account when deciding how his conduct ought to be characterised under s 196(1) of the National Law.

1. Ground 4 alleges that AHPRA, the applicant and the respondent had had previous dealings before these Tribunal proceedings. Some of those previous dealings resulted in the applicant taking action against the respondent. None of those previous dealings resulted in any Tribunal or Court finding against the respondent. There is thus no Tribunal or Court finding about what the respondent did or did not do which led to the applicant taking previous action against him prior to these proceedings.
2. From the Book of Documents provided by the applicant, the Tribunal is satisfied that:

(a) On 24 September 2017 a patient lodged a complaint with AHPRA about the respondent;

(b) On 3 November 2017 the respondent wrote to AHPRA disputing the complaint;

(c) On 29 November 2017 AHPRA wrote to the respondent notifying him of proposed action by the applicant;

(d) On 8 December 2017 the respondent wrote to AHPRA disputing the complaint;

(e) On 6 February 2018 the applicant issued a caution to the respondent.

(f) On 16 August 2018 a patient lodged a complaint with AHPRA about the respondent;

(g) On 19 September 2018 the respondent disputed the complaint in writing;

(h) On 5 December 2018 AHPRA wrote to the respondent notifying him of proposed action by the applicant;

(i) On 19 December 2018 the respondent wrote to AHPRA disputing the complaint;

(j) On 16 January 2019 the applicant imposed conditions on the respondent's registration.

(k) On 5 September 2019 a patient lodged a complaint with AHPRA about the respondent;

(l) The respondent provided a written undated response to the complaint;

(m) On 21 February 2020 the applicant decided to take no further action against the respondent.

(n) On 5 August 2020 the applicant imposed conditions on the respondent's registration consequent upon a notification to AHPRA by a patient dated 5 May 2019 (the notification is not before the Tribunal). The conditions required the respondent to nominate a mentor and mentoring plan for the applicant's approval;

(o) The respondent nominated a mentor but on 2 December 2020 the applicant decided that it did not approve the nominated mentor and mentoring plan, and requested the respondent to nominate a new mentor and mentoring plan by 11 January 2021;

(p) On 11 May 2021 AHPRA wrote to the respondent because no new mentor nomination had been received from the respondent;

(q) On 18 August 2021 the applicant determined that the respondent had failed to nominate a mentor, and imposed a caution.

(r) On 9 March 2021 AHPRA wrote two letters to the Respondent, both referring to "the letter advising [him] of the investigation about [his] conduct" and informing him that the applicant had decided to take no further action. No other document about these investigations is before the Tribunal.

1. Ground 4 alleges that the behaviour alleged in Allegations 1-3 of this [Amended] Initiating Application forms part of a broader pattern of conduct or practice of the respondent that is unprofessional and inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession. In paragraphs [4.1 - 4.23] of the Amended Initiating Application the applicant sets out particulars which it contends are part of the alleged broader pattern of conduct.
2. One difficulty with Ground 4 is that very little of paragraphs [4.1 - 4.23] sets out alleged conduct of the respondent. Most of the conduct that is set out is in fact the conduct of the applicant in response to various notifications received by AHPRA about the respondent.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and respondent had had previous dealings by which the applicant had issued two cautions to the respondent, had imposed conditions on his registration, and had decided to take no further action in respect of three AHPRA investigations. On the basis of the documents provided by the applicant, the Tribunal is unable to determine the factual basis of the applicant's decisions to impose two cautions and conditions on the respondent's registration. The Tribunal does not have the evidence that was presumably before the applicant when it reached those decisions. It follows that the Tribunal is unable to determine whether the conduct established by the applicant in respect of Grounds 1 and 3 falls into 'a broader pattern of conduct or practice of the Respondent'. The factual evidence is simply not before the Tribunal to enable it to make findings about any 'pattern of conduct or practice' by the respondent.
4. The applicant did not cite to the Tribunal any legal precedent for previous behaviour about which no Tribunal findings were made, forming a broader pattern of conduct or practice of the relevant health practitioner which the Tribunal should accept is unprofessional and inconsistent with the health practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in their profession. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept that in this matter where the Tribunal does not have the evidence that was before the applicant when it reached its previous decisions concerning the respondent. Nor, in the absence of that evidence, is the Tribunal prepared to accept that there has been any aggravation of the respondent's conduct.
5. The Tribunal is however prepared to accept that in considering the question of penalty, the Tribunal can take into account the respondent's disciplinary history and that this is not the first occasion on which he has faced disciplinary action by the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to impose disciplinary action on the respondent towards the more serious end of the range of disciplinary action available to it.
6. In this matter the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has established professional misconduct by the respondent in respect of Ground 1, and unprofessional conduct by the respondent in respect of Ground 3. The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent's conduct is sufficiently serious that he should be reprimanded, his registration should be cancelled, and that he should be prohibited from providing any health service until he is granted registration as a health practitioner under the National Law. Further, the Tribunal considers it appropriate that the respondent must pay the applicant's costs.
7. The Tribunal is of the view that it is appropriate to make a confidentiality order prohibiting the publication of the identity of any of the patients referred to in the proceedings.

1. The Tribunal decides pursuant to s 196(1) of the National Law that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct and in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.
2. The Tribunal imposes the following disciplinary action:

2.a. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law the respondent is reprimanded.

2.b. Pursuant to s 196(2)(e) of the National Law the registration of the practitioner is cancelled.

2.c. Pursuant to s 196(4)(b) of the National Law, until he is granted registration as a health practitioner under the National Law, the respondent is prohibited from providing any health service, whether directly or indirectly, and whether as an employee, contractor, manager or volunteer.

1. The respondent must pay the costs of the Board to be agreed or fixed by the Tribunal.
2. Pursuant to s 60(2)(g) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal prohibits the publication of any evidence given before the Tribunal or of the contents of any document produced to the Tribunal that identifies any of the patients referred to in the proceedings.