1. On the basis of the facts as found, and having regard to the admissions made by the respondent, I find that the respondent's conduct in relation to allegation 1 breached clauses 2.1, 4.15, 7.2.1, 3.1.4 and 10.5.1 of the Code.
2. On the basis of the facts as found, and having regard to the admissions made by the respondent, I find that the respondent's conduct in relation to allegation 2 breached the requirement to give written notice to the applicant of a relevant event within 7 days contrary to s 130 of the National Law.

1. I am satisfied on all the evidence before the Tribunal, noting the agreement as between the parties, and the respondent's submissions, the alleged conduct set out in allegation 1 constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to (a) of the definition of the term in s 5 of the National Law, and that the conduct alleged in Ground 2 constitutes unprofessional conduct under (a) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law.

1. In the agreed statement of facts, findings and determinations, the applicant and the respondent have proposed the following sanctions:

(i) The respondent be reprimanded;

(ii) The respondent's registration as a medical practitioner be suspended for six months from the date of this decision.

1. Section 5 of the National Law provides that professional misconduct of a registered health practitioner includes:

(a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

...

(b) 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.

1. As stated by the Tribunal in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Easdon [2024] VCAT 321 (Easdon) at [75]-[78]:

75. The definition is inclusive. A practitioner may engage in professional misconduct which does not fit neatly into one or other of those categories. Further, the definition does not preclude more than one sub-paragraph applying to particular misconduct. > > 76. Characterising proven conduct is an objective assessment which looks towards the conduct in light of the applicable standards and relevant definitions, rather than matters arising later in time, such as remorse, insight, and rehabilitation. > > 77. In relation to a finding under paragraphs (a) of the definition, the Tribunal must assess the degree of seriousness of the practitioner's conduct having regard to the extent to which the conduct departs from the proper standards of professional conduct of a registered medical practitioner. The gravity of professional misconduct is not measured by reference to the worst cases, but by the extent to which it departs from the proper standards. > > 78. In relation to a finding under paragraph (c) of the definition, the term 'fit and proper person' allows for a wide range of matters to be considered. As stated by the Tribunal in Psychology Board of Australia v Griersmith [2019] VCAT 32 [67]: > > It includes not only whether a person has the necessary honesty, knowledge and ability but also whether the person possesses sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to permit them to be accredited to the public as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work the relevant registration or licence entails. The decision maker needs to make a value judgment and, in so doing, must make an assessment of the seriousness or otherwise of the particular conduct for evaluation. The same approach is to be applied to weighing matters in favour of the person.

2. Section 5 of the National Law provides that the unprofessional conduct of a registered health practitioner means conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of the health practitioner by the public or the practitioner's professional peers, and include:

(a) A contravention by the practitioner of this law, whether or not the practitioner has been prosecuted for, or convicted of, an offence in relation to the contravention

...

(1) A registered health practitioner or student must within 7 days of becoming aware that a relevant event has occurred in relation to the practitioner or student, give the national board established for the practitioner's or student's health profession written notice of the event.

1. A "relevant event" is defined by s 130(3) of the National Law to include:

(d) The practitioner's right to practice at a hospital or other facility at which hospital services are provided is withdrawn or restricted because of the practitioner's conduct, professional performance, or health.

...

1. The Tribunal has power to make determinations under s 196(2) of the National Law. Section 3A(1) of the National Law provides that in determining any regulatory action to take, paramount considerations that the Tribunal must take into account are "protective of the public" and "public confidence in the safety of the services provided by registered health practitioners and students".
2. Other guiding principles are contained within s 3A(2)(b) which states that the restrictions on the practice of a health professional are to be imposed under the scheme "only if it necessary to ensure health services are provided safely and are of an appropriate quality".
3. It is clear that the Tribunal's primary role is to protect the public rather than punish health practitioners who engage in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct. In appropriate cases, the Tribunal is required to make determinations which will deter the individual health practitioner from engaging the same or like conduct (specific deterrence) and which also serve as a warning to other health practitioners (general deterrence).
4. The evidence contained within the material before the Tribunal relied upon by the Board, and admitted by the respondent, satisfies me to the requisite standard that the first allegation against the respondent does constitute professional misconduct. The respondent's conduct as particularised and admitted amounts to conduct below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level or training or experience as the respondent.
5. The evidence contained within the material before the Tribunal relied upon by the Board, and admitted by the respondent, satisfies me to the requisite standard that the second allegation against the respondent does constitute unprofessional conduct. The respondent's failure to notify the Board of his termination of employment at the LGH on 22 March 2024 is clearly a relevant event, being the withdrawal of the respondent's right to practice at a hospital because of his conduct, or professional performance.
6. Although each case is determined on its own facts and reference to past sanctions is an imperfect guide, consideration of sanctions imposed in similar cases involving analogous conduct can assist in determining the appropriate sanction - See Osteopathy Board of Australia v Ratcliff [2021] VCAT 658 at [67], Chinese Medical Board of Australia v Zhou [2020] SACAT 23 at [98] and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Pannell [2019] SACAT 42 at [49].
7. In the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision of Medical Board of Australia v AEB [2023] VCAT 674, the medical practitioner treated multiple family members including their father, mother, son, ex-husband and grandfather. The most serious conduct involved the prescription of pethidine (a Schedule 8 opioid) to their father continuously over years, without the legally required permits. The practitioner also practiced long term treatment of their father, mother, and grandfather for chronic conditions where independent care should have been arranged. For the treatment of AEB's father, mother and grandfather, VCAT found the treatment to constitute professional misconduct as the treatment was avoidable, contrary to standards and involved unsafe Schedule 8 prescribing.
8. VCAT stressed that prescribing Schedule 8 drugs to a relative without proper oversight was a serious breach of both legislative requirements and professional standards.
9. In Medical Board of Australia v AEB, the health practitioner was reprimanded and given a six-month suspension from practicing medicine. Upon return to practice, conditions of mentoring and physiological treatment were imposed upon AEB.
10. Considering this decision but focusing on the agreed and found facts in relation to this matter, I agree that a reprimand it appropriate.
11. A reprimand is a formal denunciation of a practitioner's conduct. A reprimand is a form of official censure. It is a formal statement of denunciation of a practitioner's conduct which appears on their registration record - See for example Medical Board of Australia v Adams (supra) and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Brealey [2012] QCAT 323 and Honey v Medical Practitioner Board of Victoria [2007] VCAT 526.
12. With regard to the suspension of the respondent's registration as a medical practitioner for 6 months from the date of this decision, on the evidence, I consider the agreed sanction to be appropriate.
13. Although the respondent's motivation for this prescription of medications to his mother arose from what he described as extreme pressure and facing significant cultural expectations from his mother, it is clear that the respondent has acknowledged that his significant concerns for his mother do not excuse his conduct.
14. Even though the respondent has acknowledged reflecting on his conduct and feeling significant remorse for his conduct, as was stressed by VCAT in Medical Board of Australia v AEB, the prescription of drugs of dependence to a relative without proper oversight is a serious breach of both legislative requirements and professional standards.
15. Unlike the respondent's conduct in Medical Board of Australia v AEB, only the respondent's mother was the recipient of the medications inappropriately prescribed by the respondent, and the prescription of these medications occurred over a period of less than twelve months.
16. Noting these facts, and the respondent's acknowledgement and remorse, I do not consider the imposition of any conditions on the respondent upon his return to practice to be necessary.
17. With regard to the determination that the respondent had failed to comply with s 130(3) of the National Law in not advising the applicant of termination of his employment at the LGH on 22 March 2024 within the seven days required, and having considered the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia's decision in Medical Board of Australia and Singh (supra) at [29] where it was stated:

The circumstances of this case warrant a global approach to sanction rather the imposition of a separate sanction for each unprofessional act as the facts in the case are so inexplicably woven as to make it difficult to meet a clear standard of prescription.

these sanctions are imposed for both determinations in relation to the respondent's professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct.

1. Section 40 of the Health Practitioners Tribunal Act 2010 and s 195 of the National Law provides a power to the Tribunal to award costs.
2. Although the discretion expressed in the National Law as to costs is unfettered, there is no starting point for costs to follow the event and neither is there a starting point that the parties will bear their own costs.
3. In the agreed statement of facts, findings and determinations, the Board and the respondent have reached an agreement that the respondent will pay the Board's costs to be taxed calculated at 90% of the scale of fees in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 at the date the relevant work was undertaken.
4. In Medical Board of Australia v Shannon Lovell Greene [2025] TASCAT 140, Deputy President Grueber stated at [59]:

... it is common for the Tribunal to award costs in health practitioner matters at 90 per cent of the Supreme Court Scale. Given the issues and conduct of this matter I am satisfied that that is appropriate in this case.

5. I see no reason to depart from the use of this scale in this matter.
6. It is clear that in this matter, the respondent has acquiesced to the Board's position and has agreed to pay the Board's costs.
7. On the material before me I do not consider it appropriate to upset this aspect of the agreement between the parties.

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

(ii) Pursuant to s 196(2)(d) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law the respondent's registration as a medical practitioner is suspended for six months from the date of this decision.

(iii) The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application calculated at 90% of the Scale of Fees in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 as at the date the relevant work was undertaken, to be agreed or taxed by a Registrar of the Tribunal and to be paid within 28 days of agreed or the issue of a Certificate of Taxation, whichever occurs first.