(a) Dr Regan Shaw is reprimanded.

(b) Dr Regan Shaw's registration as a medical practitioner is cancelled.

(c) Dr Regan Shaw is disqualified from applying for registration as a medical practitioner for a period of six years from the date of these orders.

(d) Dr Regan Shaw is to pay the Medical Board of Australia's costs of the proceeding, to be assessed at 90% of the scale of costs applicable under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 as at the date that the relevant work was undertaken, to be agreed or taxed by a Registrar of the Tribunal and to be paid within 28 days of agreement or the issue of a certificate of taxation whichever first occurs.

Health Practitioner regulation - Registered medical practitioner - Insulting, offensive and inappropriate communications to Tasmania Police, AHPRA and others - Failure to attend scheduled health assessment - Conviction under Police Offences Act 1935 - Professional misconduct - Reprimand - Cancellation and disqualification - Costs.

Health Practitioners Regulation National Law; ss 3A, 5, 41 130, 169, 193, 195;

Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas); ss 34B;

Supreme Court Rules 2000.

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336;

Nursing and Midwifery Board v Maher [2020] VCAT 1125;

Medical Board of Australia & Pharmacy Board of Australia v Lee [2019] VCAT 311;

Medical Board of Australia v WEQ [2024] VCAT 728;

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Willox [2019] VCAT 1180;

Medical Board of Australia v Stephen Hindley [2025] TASCAT 223;

Medical Board of Australia v Ellis [2024] VCAT 113;

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v EEB [2021] VCAT 662;

Nursing and Midwifery Board v Little [2020] VCAT 687;

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Stogiannis [2025] VCAT 563;

Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Williams (Legal Practice) [2022] VCAT 806;

Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374;

Medical Board of Australia v Adams [2025] TASCAT 125;

Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia v Lau [2025] VCAT 35.

Publication by any means or other disclosure of any information which might enable the identification of any patient, notifier or lay person named or referred to in the proceedings is prohibited, with the exception of the identification of the respondent or any other health professional who may have given evidence. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not prohibit the publication by any means, use or disclosure of the identity of any patient, notifier or lay person for the purpose of these proceedings, any appeals to the proceedings or other proceedings involving the same parties.

Amended pursuant to Section 119 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020

Redactions made at paras 22, 29, 33, 37, 44, 47, 51, 53.

• 1. On 2 July 2024 the Medical Board of Australia (the Board) made a referral to the Tribunal under s 193(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law[1] (the National Law). The referral was made on the basis that the Board had formed a reasonable belief that the respondent, Dr Regan Shaw, had engaged in conduct that amounted to professional misconduct.

1. The Board raised four allegations against Dr Shaw.
2. The respondent participated in two directions hearings convened by the Tribunal in relation to the Board's referral, but ultimately declined to participate when the matter was listed for hearing on 11 December 2024 (the first day of hearing)
3. On that day, after hearing from the Board's counsel, I ultimately found three of the Board's allegations to be proved and determined that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct as alleged by the Board in allegations 1, 2 and 3. I dismissed the Board's referral insofar as allegation 4 was concerned.
4. Where I found the allegations proved, I did so on the civil standard of proof, and applying the Briginshaw[2] standard.
5. The hearing was then adjourned so that the respondent could be notified of my determination, and to give him the opportunity to participate when the hearing was reconvened for the Tribunal to receive submissions as to appropriate consequential determinations, and an application by the Board for costs.
6. The respondent declined also to participate in a further hearing on 19 March 2025 (the second day of hearing).
7. This decision encompassed my reasons for the determinations made at the conclusion of the first day of hearing, where I found that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct in relation to the first three allegations made by the Board, and dismissed the fourth.
8. This decision also includes my determination about the appropriate sanctions to impose upon the respondent, and resolution of the Board's application for costs.

1. The four allegations made by the Board were extensive, and are set out in full at annexure "A" to this decision.
2. In summary, the Board alleged that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct (or alternatively unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory professional performance) on the following bases:

(a) Allegation 1: between in or around November 2022 and May 2024, Dr Shaw sent email correspondence to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and other State and Commonwealth regulatory and political bodies that was harassing, abusive, intimidating, threatening, derogatory, purported to convey a refusal to treat a cohort of patients, and was otherwise unprofessional or inappropriate.

(b) Allegation 2: on or about 28 August 2023, Dr Shaw failed to attend a scheduled health assessment as required under s 169 of the National Law, without reasonable excuse.

(c) Allegation 3: on or about 8 May 2023, Dr Shaw was convicted in the Magistrates' Court of Tasmania of one charge of using abusive language to a police officer in the performance or execution of their duty, contrary to s 34B(1)(b) of the Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas) (the Police Offences Act).

(d) Allegation 4: on or around 16 February 2023, Dr Shaw contravened s 130(1) of the National Law by failing to give notice within seven days that he had been charged with an offence punishable by 12 month's imprisonment or more.

1. Section 193(1)(a) of the National Law requires a National Board to refer to a responsible tribunal the conduct of a registered health practitioner where the Board reasonably believes that the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
2. Under s 5 of the National Law, "professional misconduct" is defined as follows:

"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) 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 > > (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.

3. "Unprofessional conduct" is also defined in s 5 of the National Law:

"unprofessional conduct" of a registered health practitioner, means professional 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.

4. Section 41 of the National Law provides that a code or guideline approved by a National Board:

Is admissible in proceedings under this law.....against a health practitioner registered in a health profession for which the Board is established as evidence of what constitutes appropriate professional conduct or practise for the health profession.

5. The National Board has developed Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia (the Code). The Code at 1.1 states that it:

Describes what is expected of all doctors registered to practise medicine in Australia. It sets out the principles that characterise good medical practice and makes explicit the standards of ethical and professional conduct expected of doctors by their professional peers and the community.

Professionalism > > 2.1 Professional values and qualities of doctors > > While individual doctors have their own personal beliefs and values, there are certain professional values on which all doctors are expected to base their practice. > > ...They must be honest, ethical and trustworthy. > > Patients trust their doctors because they believe that, as well as being competent, their doctor will not take advantage of them and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion... > > Good communication underpins every aspect of good medical practice. > > Professionalism includes self-awareness and self-reflection... > > 2.2 Public comment and trust in the profession > > The community trusts the medical profession. Every doctor has a responsibility to behave ethically to justify this trust. > > While there are professional values that underpin good medical practice, all doctors have a right to have and express their personal views and values. However, the boundary between a doctor's personal and public profile can be blurred. As a doctor, you need to consider the effect of your public comments and your actions outside work, including online, related to medical and clinical issues, and how they reflect on your role as a doctor and on the reputation of the profession. > > Respectful culture > > 5.1 Introduction > > Respectful relationships with medical colleagues, other healthcare professionals, team members and patients are essential for safe patient care. > > 5.2 Respect for medical colleagues and other healthcare professionals > > Good patient care is enhanced when there is mutual respect and clear communication between all healthcare professionals.... Good medical practice involves: > > .... > > 5.2.2 Communicating clearly, effectively, courteously, respectfully and promptly with other doctors and healthcare professionals caring for the patient.... > > 5.3 Teamwork > > Most doctors work closely with a wide range of healthcare professionals. The care of patients is improved when there is mutual respect and clear communication, as well as an understanding of the responsibilities, capacities, constraints and ethical codes of each other's professions. > > 5.4 Discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment > > There is no place for discrimination (including racism), bullying and sexual harassment in the medical profession or in healthcare in Australia. Respect is a cornerstone of good medical practice and of patient safety. It is a feature of constructive relationships between medical practitioners, their peers and colleagues on healthcare teams, and with patients. Discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment adversely affect individual health practitioners, increase risk to patients and compromise effective teamwork by healthcare teams. > > Good medical practice involves: > > 5.4.1 Being fair and showing respect for peers, colleagues, co-workers, students on healthcare teams and patients. > > 5.4.2 Not discriminating against, bullying or sexually harassing others. > > Working within the healthcare system > > 7.1 Introduction > > Doctors have a responsibility to contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the healthcare system. > > 7.2 Wise use of healthcare resources > > It is important to use healthcare resources wisely. Good medical practice involves: > > ... > > 7.2.2 Upholding the patient's right to gain access to the necessary level of healthcare and, whenever possible, helping them to do so. > > Professional behaviour > > 10.1 Introduction > > In professional life, doctors must display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community. This includes observing and practising the principles of ethical conduct.

1. The following matters are taken from the materials relied upon by the Board that formed the hearing book, including materials authored by the respondent and filed by him in the Tribunal prior to the hearing.
2. The respondent was in a relationship which ended in about mid-2021. The respondent moved out of the family home and lived in what I infer was their holiday home.
3. In August 2021 the respondent complained to Tasmania Police that his former partner's father had opened the respondent's mail that had been delivered to the former family home after the respondent had moved out.
4. The respondent was dissatisfied with the response he received from Tasmania Police.
5. In December 2021 the respondent made a statement to Tasmania Police regarding his mail being tampered with. He wanted the matter to be investigated. In January 2022 the respondent made a statement by way of a statutory declaration to Tasmania Police in relation to allegations that he had been assaulted [redacted] in 2019 and on other occasions, and experienced a sexual assault [redacted].
6. The respondent was also dissatisfied with the response from Tasmania Police in relation to the alleged assaults and alleged sexual assault.
7. Because of his dissatisfaction with the response from Tasmania Police in January 2022 the respondent made complaints against Tasmania Police in relation to:
   • Their response to the mail complaints.
   • Their response to the assault complaints and the sexual assault complaint.
8. The respondent was also dissatisfied with the response from Tasmania Police in relation to the complaints that he had made against Tasmania Police, and sent a number of emails expressing his dissatisfaction.
9. A notification was received by AHPRA subsequently in relation to two issues, one of which concerned the respondent's mental health in relation to numerous emails sent by the respondent to Tasmania Police.
10. An investigation was undertaken in respect of the notification.
11. The Board, on 2 November 2022, by letter to the respondent's lawyers, cautioned the respondent from communicating with the Tasmania Police in a disrespectful manner which it considered to be below the standard of a medical practitioner, and negatively impacting the reputation of the medical profession.
12. In its reasons for that decision, the Board noted:

Dr Shaw states his communication with Taspol came about as a result of a lack of support, feelings of being misunderstood and ignored, not being taken seriously in his complaints, including complaints of physical and sexual assault. > > The emails sent to Dr Shaw to Taspol, whilst unusual in structure and clearly indicate that Dr Shaw is dissatisfied and highly critical of Taspol, are insufficient to substantiate concerns regarding Dr Shaw's mental health and we believe that no further inquiry or action is necessary regarding the information from Dr Shaw's employer have confirmed there are no concerns regarding Dr Shaw in a professional capacity. The emails do however raise concerns regarding Dr Shaw's communication. The emails are disrespectful, threatening and demeaning in nature and are below the standard of communication expected of a medical practitioner. Dr Shaw has failed to acknowledge that his communication was inappropriate or show any insight in relation to this. Whilst Dr Shaw was under a significant amount of stress at the time the emails were sent, the communication to Taspol was not proportionate. > > The Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia (the Code of Conduct)......s 2.2 notes that all doctors have a responsibility to behave ethically to justify the trust placed in them by the community and that doctors need to consider the effect of their actions outside work, and how they reflect on their role as a doctor and on the reputation of the profession. > > ......whilst occurring outside of Dr Shaw's practice as a medical practitioner, Dr Shaw's email communication with Taspol also does not align with the Code of Conduct and is below the standard expected of a medical practitioner, negatively impacting the reputation of the medical profession. Dr Shaw has failed to demonstrate insight that his communication was inappropriate. We believe a caution is necessary to put Dr Shaw on notice that this type of communication is not appropriate and remind him of the standards expected of medical practitioners.

1. The background set out above is relevant in that it sets a parameter for what this decision is about.
2. The background is also relevant because it provides some context to the conduct of the respondent that is the subject of this referral.
3. The referral that is now before the Tribunal is only in relation to the conduct of the respondent that occurred after the Board issued the caution to the respondent on 2 November 2022.
4. The respondent sent an email to the Tribunal on 10 September 2024, together with materials that he requested "please enter to evidence for tribunal". In the covering email, the respondent referenced [redacted], his mail being opened, the actions by Tasmania Police (including what the respondent described as the 'vexatious' complaint to AHPRA) and what he asserted were unprofessional actions of AHPRA[3].
5. The respondent's email of 10 September 2024 and annexed materials were included in the materials put before the Tribunal by the Board. The respondent's email also set out the respondent's position in relation to two aspects of the allegations made by the Board that are the subject of this referral, and I have had regard to that position.

1. The following matters are taken from the materials relied upon by the Board that formed the hearing book.
2. On 6 November 2022 the respondent sent a number of emails to various organisations and people.
3. One email, addressed directly to an AHPRA investigator, and also to the Tasmanian Ombudsman, Tasmania Police Professional Standards, and the Tasmanian Attorney General read:

Hate to think that ahpra would reprimand someone who was abused and not even investigated by police. In addition, a failure to investigate properly - Commonwealth offences. Resulted in further crimes against me. The gaslighting will not work. I'm coming for you bastards, job or no job.

4. On 8 November 2022, AHPRA made an own motion notification (the OMN) in relation to the respondent's conduct in continuing to send inappropriate emails after having been cautioned by the Board. AHPRA, in the OMN, referred to the decision of the Board dated 2 November 2022 and noted:

It is not known when Dr Shaw was advised by his legal representative of the action taken. TASPOL advised the investigator that from 7pm on 2 November 2022, Dr Shaw sent harassing and threatening emails to TASPOL.....Dr Shaw has continued to send unprofessional and disrespectful emails to the AHPRA investigator, TASPOL, Professional Standards TASPOL and the Ombudsman Tasmania. > > We would like to lodge a notification on the basis of Dr Shaw allegedly engaging in similar behaviour that led to the Board cautioning him so soon after the Board's decision.

5. An investigation was undertaken in relation to the OMN. On 16 December 2022 AHPRA wrote to the respondent in relation to the OMN, including the following:

In summary this notification has been raised by AHPRA due to concerns that following AHPRA providing advice to your legal representatives at 2:33pm on 2 November 2022, regarding the Board's decision of outcome of notification number 00491184;

1. TASPOL advise that from 7pm on 2 November 2022, you sent harassing and threatening emails to TASPOL
2. You continue to send unprofessional and disrespectful emails to the AHPRA investigator, TASPOL, Professional Standards TASPOL and the Ombudsman Tasmania.

The notification has been raised on the basis that you allegedly engaged in similar behaviour that led to the Board cautioning you so soon after the Board's decision. > > Upon assessment of the notification, AHPRA is concerned that there may potentially be a health condition impacting on your conduct as a medical practitioner.

The respondent was invited to provide a written response

1. Thereafter the respondent, over the next several days, sent a flurry of emails to various entities in response to AHPRA's correspondence of 16 December 2022.
2. On 16 December 2022 at 12:12 pm the respondent emailed Tasmania Police Professional Standards:

No matter how much you try, you're paying me! Regardless.

On 16 December 2022 at 3:01pm the respondent forwarded the above to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and wrote:

Hey [police officer O], you've gone as far as you can. Look forward to Your demotion! Don't try and be a tough guy you pussy.

On 16 December 2022 at 3:06pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

[Police officer O] like most male cops, were likely unpopular as young people. They apply for payback. In this case, failure. Good luck prick!.

On 16 December 2022 at 3:13pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

Despite [police officer O's] protectors and approval, on the stand you'll be the shaking little man you are. Look forward.

On 16 December 2022 at 3:16pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

Every email to [police officer O] applies to the overweight and likely unfit for duties [police officer H].

On 16 December 2022 at 3:45pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

Hey [police office O], what psychiatric medications are you on? Are you fit for work?

On 16 December 2022 at 3:46pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

On 16 December 2022 at 3:47pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

Same questions for [police officer H]. Think I know the answer.

On 16 December 2022 at 3:53pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

You see, you're confusing two separate issues - gaslighting. There is failure to properly assess crime and then there is fitness for work. You've attempted to blend the two. I am clear thinking. Are you? Or could you be mentally ill? Any history? Are you taking psychiatric medication? Guess we will see.

On 16 December 2022 at 4:03pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to AHPRA and additionally wrote:

1. On 16 December 2022 the respondent emailed AHPRA at 1:53pm:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter. > > This is my formal response. > > I will not engage in a professional manner with an organisation who has been unprofessional and incompetent in dealing with my complaints. > > If you want to de-register me over this complaint, up to you.

At 2:26pm the respondent forwarded the above email to AHPRA with the additional comment:

When you get a complaint from my patient, I'll be interested. Otherwise, prepared for what other garbage you want with respect to this case.

1. On 16 December 2022 at 1:57pm the respondent commenced a different email thread to Tasmania Police Professional Standards:

Another complaint to AHPRA, you fucking pussy [police officer O].

On 16 December 2022 at 1:58pm the respondent forwarded the above email to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

And the harassment continues.

First you [sic] lack of action on Commonwealth offences, then an harassing complaint to AHPRA - found nothing. Now another complaint for but hurt. You're a coward punk. Nothing more.

On 16 December 2022 at 2:00pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

And when I am deregistered, my lack of income comes back to Tasmania police as the cause. Good luck. None of your scumbags are my patients and has nothing to do with career. Just typical tyrant cop punks. Good luck arsehole.

On 16 December 2022 at 2:04pm the respondent forwarded his response to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

On 16 December 2022 at 2:05pm the respondent forwarded the above email to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and wrote:

On 16 December 2022 at 2:06pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

I would suggest you worry more about your abusive comments to me. There is real liability there.

On 16 December 2022 at 2:07pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

On 19 December 2022 at 6:52pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

Fuckery from the top. Dumbed down tyrants with a badge and a gun - see [police office O] and [police officer H]. Pathetic. Better start counting the cost to the tax payer. I made a generous offer, it's off the table.

On 19 December 2022 at 7:08pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

My new offer is $5 million. No disclosure agreement. Look forward to your response.

On 19 December 2022 at 7:11pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

On 19 December 2022 at 7:57pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

Hope you are not trying to involve AHPRA in a law suit against Tasmania police. That would be pretty obvious! They've been pretty careful not to get involved so far - see previous letter regarding your defamatory complaints. Trust they have lawyers a little more high brow than yours.

1. On 16 December 2022 at 2:21pm the respondent emailed AHPRA:

Should the previous AHPRA investigator chose to test her inappropriate behaviour by contacting [redacted], regarding my capacity to practice. Try your luck, please stop I haven't seen my or spoken directly to [redacted] since July 2021. > > As for Tasmania police, they are crooks covering for their lack of action on Commonwealth offences against me. Convenient that was not mentioned in your last report? Well it will be in this one.

On 16 December 2022 at 2:46pm the respondent forwarded the above email to AHPRA again and additionally said:

My places of work haven't changed since my last harassment by Taspol so won't be completing your paperwork - see [the respondent's places of work]. No other changes.

1. On 16 December 2022 at 3:44pm the respondent forwarded to AHPRA the covering letter that had been attached to AHPRA's email of 16 December 2022, and said:

Please forward all correspondence in relation to this complaint.

On 17 December 2022 at 2:15pm the respondent forwarded the above email to AHPRA and said:

At the end of the day, if Tasmania police did their job we wouldn't be in this mess. I consider this ongoing harassment.

They failed to deal with multiple Commonwealth offences committed against. Admitted faults.

Failed to apologise. Made a vexatious complaint in an attempt to intimidate and destroy my reputation. By Sgt I never met. Failed to apologise.

I've been the victim of sexual assault and physical assault causing bodily harm, no action by Tasmania police. Now they are using you as a way to

To continue to harass me.

If I was a woman, none of this would be happening.

They are discriminating against me.

In addition [police office O] wrote an extremely offensive and abusive letter to me, lacking complete insight. His letter is in direct conflict with their website and treatment of individuals who are victims of sexual violence.

I will continue to fight for what is right. I don't appreciate ongoing AHPRA interference as this has nothing to do with my patient care.

I am the victim of crime. Tasmania police are attempting to gaslight me. Its not on.

1. On 16 December 2022 at 4:56pm the Integrity Commission contact email acknowledged receipt of an email from the respondent to the Integrity Commission.
2. On 16 December 2022 at 5:20pm the respondent forwarded the above email back to the Integrity Commission and additionally wrote:

Good payout for Higgins, why? And apparently her dress was grass stained before attending the parliament. Grace Tame case? What is above my complaint? According to you, "I didn't say no". > > Did I have capacity? Was I coerced? Have you even investigated to date? I suggest you do before a comkonwealth [sic] hearing. You violated my human rights. [Redacted] prosecutor at The Haig. I wanted nothing to do with you people. You inserted yourself into my life and failed on commonwealth offences. I now come for you. With connections.

On 16 December 2022 at 5:27pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to the Integrity Commission and also wrote:

If you thought I'd be deregistered, fingers crossed. If I do, your liability will be in the tens.

Of millions. According to [redacted] (prosecutor at The Haig). Who by the way agrees that [police officer O's] letter give lack of investigation of sexual assault constitutes liability. As if I needed her opinion.

On 16 December 2022 at 5:22pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to the Integrity Commission, the Tasmanian Ombudsman, Tasmania Police Professional Standards and the Tasmanian Attorney General and wrote:

And surely at this point, one has to question the role of the Integrity Commission.

On 16 December 2022 at 5:44pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to AHPRA and also wrote:

If my health is concern given Taspol lack of action on sexual, physical assault and multiple Commonwealth offences, I would suggest you're questioning the wrong person.

1. On 18 December 2022 at 1:06pm the respondent emailed Tasmania Police Professional Standards:

Hey [police officer O], are hurt feelings a misdemeanour or a felony? "get a life".

On 18 December 2022 at 1:12pm the respondent forwarded the above email to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

That's why you tyrants get off on exercising what little power you have - pfvos.

Enforcing hurt feelings with no threats and no history of violence. You're a hero pal!.

On 18 December 2022 at 1:41pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

In my case, we're taking above real criminal code violation. You failed, now attempting to re-victimise the victim. Your organisation failed me. Take some ownership. If you don't you're a punk.

On 18 December 2022 at 1:45pm the respondent forwarded the above emails to Tasmania Police Professional Standards and also wrote:

I'm quite happy to lose my career for your shortcomings. Will be very costly for Tasmania police. Liability already established. Whoever is advising you should go back to school.

1. The above emails from the respondent to various entities cover the period of fewer than three weeks after the Board cautioned the respondent in relation to his communications with Tasmania Police.
2. Counsel for the Board referred to two series of emails which were submitted to be generally representative of the evidence relied upon by the Board in respect of allegation 1, but not the worst example.
3. The first of the series of emails referred to by the Board in that context is a series of emails sent on 13 January 2024 by the respondent to Ms JM, commencing at 1.03pm. They are set out in reverse chronological order:

Sent: Friday 13 January 2023 2:40pm, R Shaw > > Just so you know, they can access everything you have searched, downloaded, texts, Emails, personal movements . Lol! And you thought you were investigating me?! > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 3:06 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > I mean, every email you have written, sent etc. on the record. Better have more integrity than you did with me. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 3:02 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Can't erase them. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 3:02 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Integrity commission is involved. Every email you have ever sent will be potentially reviewed. Same for ahpra, Taspol etc. just a heads up. Better to admit wrongdoing. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 2:29 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > That doesn't include the 1 million for your action ‐ contacting [redacted]. 10'million for ahpras involvement. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 2:27 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Let ahpra know , I look forward to whatever they bring forward. Advise them for 10million, I will resign. Short of that, can't wait. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 2:24 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > You're gonna have to hustle to make the money you have caused the system. Know you need to justify your role. What you did, very wrong! Good luck scumbag > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 2:20 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > That money could have gone to the environment and homeless. You must be sad. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 2:17 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Thought you were special and powerful? Think again > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 2:14 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > 1 million dollars for your indiscretion. Sleep on that. Lots of wasted taxpayer dollars > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 2:04 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Before you feel sorry for yourself, I didn't request your involvement. You chose vis a vis ahpra to act inappropriately. Get a good lawyer. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:55 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Ask your office how many are Melbourne grads? Answer is none. Wonder why? Degree from there and you don't bother with your types. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:53 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Handy to have been a law student at Melbourne university. Although short lived, amazing the quality of people you meet. Sad for your lot. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:49 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Barristers require these sort of things > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:49 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Oh yeah, and just for the record. Please state my risk to my patients and proof. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:44 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > No matter how you present yourself as the victim etc. you called [redacted] and asked for an opinion. You will be fired regardless of your nonsense. Not to mention the distress caused and hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars you are responsible for. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:42 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Get a good lawyer. Know you thought you were important trying to dictate my speech when I had a lawyer. Have a barrister, but now you have me. Want to tell me to shit up now [de-identified]? You're a typical gutless administrator who justifies her employment by harassing people like me at the coal face. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:38 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > NHPO, Don't get sidetracked from the complaint as stated. These lowlifes are capable of anything, including an opinion from [redacted]. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:35 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > And hey, ahpra ‐ and your corrupt investigators! Have a patient of mine who has ever made a complaint? I'm gonna make an example of you and being [sic] ahpra into disrepute. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:29 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Oh wait, millions > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:29 pm, R Shaw wrote: Either way, I'm coming for blood > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:28 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > If your lawyer was smart, he'd advise ahpra of your indiscretions ‐ part of your job. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:27 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Get a lawyer [de-identified], I'm not fucking around. You are at fault. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:25 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > I will also need to know who instigated the second investigation by ahpra? Tas police or ahpra? Maybe you? Can't wait. Means more millions for me. Sorry you're a stooge who believed you had some sort of power. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:21 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Let your colleagues know it is now litigation and not their concerns regarding my language. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:11 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Contacting [redacted] who abused me was abhorrent and disgusting. And doesn't meet community expectation. No way you have contacted a man who was alleged to have assaulted a woman to obtain an opinion regarding their capacity to practice. You're a fool and should be fired. Your lack of judgement is going to cost the taxpayer. > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:04 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Legally of course > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 1:03 pm, R Shaw wrote: > > Hope you have a good lawyer. Should the national investigative processes fail, I'm coming for you personally.

4. I accept counsel's submission that on the face of the emails, Ms JM is an AHPRA regulatory staff member. I also agree with the Board that the above could properly be described as a relentless barrage of abusive and harassing emails.
5. The second of the series of emails referred to the Board is a series of emails sent by the respondent to both the Health Management Team at AHPRA, and the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman (NHPO) in response to communication from the NHPO manager with a decision in relation to a complaint that had been made by the respondent. The emails from the respondent commence on 5 March 2023 at 1.30 pm. They are set out in reverse chronological order:

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 4:24 pm, R Shaw wrote:

If you want my opinion about her, when she is angry she has a tendency to throw fists and kick the shit out [redacted]. She is also a sexual predator. See police complaint. Have any concerns about [redacted]?

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 4:21 pm, R Shaw wrote:

I bet you will now, can't wait for the time stamp!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 4:20 pm, R Shaw wrote:

Hey ahpra, lodged an official complaint against [redacted] yet? Is it ok for a female [redacted] to physically assault and sexually assault? Lol, you woke pricks!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 4:19 pm, R Shaw wrote:

On record, your responses are gaslighting. Nothing to do with [redacted] complaint. Be sure

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 4:18 pm, R Shaw wrote:

There's no way out for any of you. I'm gonna get paid for this bullshit witch-hunt, from you and [redacted].

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 4:07 pm, R Shaw wrote:

Problem with dumb soldiers like yourself, you have no foresight Like women

who were raped and ignored by people like you. Like children of assault who

were ignored by people like you. Sexual and physical assault by women

protected by institutions like yours will be next. And you'll be crying on the

stand apologising. Like a typical government gutless cunt!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 4:01 pm, R Shaw wrote:

Hey Manager nobody,

Any context regarding [redacted] complaint? You fucking joker!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:56 pm, R Shaw

wrote:

Better bet she's gonna be on the stand!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:55 pm, R Shaw

wrote:

You low level tyrants like [redacted], fuck her! She's not worthy of her

job. A low level tyrant who thinks she has some power. Fuck her!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:54 pm, R Shaw

wrote:

And you're gonna pay me for this bullshit despite your gaslighting. Nothing you've discussed has had anything to do with sgt [redacted] complaint, which involved you. The vexatious one. I explained myself previously. Yet you pricks continue to harrass me.

Think I'm intimidated by you? Let's take it to the media.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:50 pm, R Shaw

wrote:

You are cancel culture fucks, and nothing more!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:49 pm, R Shaw wrote:

Please deregister me! You hate people like me, I've expressed my disdain for your types. Let's go! I'm ready for the fight, you?

Hope you choose the mental health route. That would make it even better and more dangerous from a democratic perspective!

Can't wait

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3 :46 pm, R Shaw wrote:

Not only will you be subject to litigation, you will also be subject to ombudsman complaint to Canberra. You woke cunts are finished

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3 :42 pm, R Shaw wrote:

In my opinion, I wouldn't trust a dumbed down civil servant as Far as I could throw them. You see, [redacted] (commonwealth offences), is a grade 10 Educated nobody who signs his name as public servant. I presume you are all the same. Guess time will tell.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3 :40 pm, R Shaw wrote:

You have not a legal leg to stand on. You did wrong. Ahpra expects us to admit wrongdoing with patients, sadly they don't take their own advice. I look forward to war with them!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:38 pm, R Shaw wrote:

Hey assholes, what was [redacted] response?

Didn't want to get on involved - aka I've beaten the shit out of the cunt and sexually assaulted him!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:37 pm, R Shaw wrote:

I look forward to litigation! You idiots got caught up in 4 letter words.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3 :36 pm, R Shaw wrote:

I really want you to deregister me! So I can serve you cunts the biggest lawsuit you've ever received. I hate no one more than Taspol, ahpra is a close second. I (despise you and your crooked double standard approach to [redacted]. You're a pack of cunts

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:32 pm, R Shaw wrote: Did NHPO recommend an investigation against [de-identified] given allegation? If not, why? Seems they will state police opinion. Has that been precedent in the past? You woke fucks!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:26 pm, R Shaw wrote: Please make an example of me! I beg you! I'm the guy who is going to put you secret tyrants in your place. I'll play you at your game cunts!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:23 pm, R Shaw wrote: Hey [de-identified], being a woke stooge is going to be costly to the taxpayer. Hope as a manger you can defend yourself to the media. If the genders were reversed and you wrote that letter, you'd be fired and on Centrelink. And I'm sure, you were given the portfolio as a male to mitigate any conflict of interest! . I don't play identity politics nor gaslighting game. You're a fucking

joke, as is your office. Oh, did I offend you? Know how you snowflakes are.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 3:00 pm, R Shaw wrote: Bring it on, I'm ready for immediate restitution.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:51 pm, R Shaw wrote: Hey Manager, your opinion means shit. Litigation coming.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:45 pm, R Shaw wrote: I can assure you'd have initiated a formal complaint against me if you received a letter from her stating the same. You ideologically possessed wankers.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:44 pm, R Shaw wrote: To Ahpra, you have no more business with me unless you have received a complaint from patient or colleague. You're dismissed. Given you have no interest in female assaults and commonwealth offences against me ([redacted]), fuckoff and leave me alone. Can assure you if this complaint came from her, you'd be all over me. You woke wankers!

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:33 pm, R Shaw wrote: Gaslighting is for woke types like you. I won't have it.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:33 pm, R Shaw wrote: Hopefully now you can see [de-identified] legal liability, now yours.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:26 pm, R Shaw wrote:

To be a civil servant in your positions, you've gotta be ideologically possessed - see identity politics, critical race theory etc. you people are the problem. Stay the fuck out of [redacted]. I was abused physically and sexually. Did I speak to her in a non respectful way, you better fucking believe it. As did she to me. Your oppressor/oppressed worldview is the problem, patriarchy blah blah blah. Most of us are sick of your types. We [redacted], nothing more, nothing less. Stay the fuck out.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:18 pm, R Shaw wrote: Make no mistake, some overpaid civil servant with a woke agenda doesn't trump law. There is so much in this case. None of you are getting off easy. I know, it's tax paid. You're all a disgrace, to me and to the taxpayer.

From: R Shaw Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:11 pm Subject: Re: OFFICIAL: NHPO/00322023 - Your complaint to the NHPO - Notice of decision To: NHPO (NHPO) You should be ashamed of yourself and your role. If I was a woman you'd be all guns blazing. This is the disconnect and the reason why our world is divided. People like you have hijacked our institutions. Make no mistake.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 2:09 pm, R Shaw wrote: What a disingenuous piece of drivel. Did you read [de-identified] complaint? Had nothing to do with the bullshit you're on about.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 1:30 pm, R Shaw

wrote: You're a bunch of woke wankers. You'd never have put up with it if the genders were reversed. This is what happens when

our institutions are hijacked by people like you. You're a disgrace.

1. Counsel for the Board also submitted that I ought to read the entirety of the respondent's emails that were in evidence. I have done so. It is difficult to describe the impression of the respondent's ongoing and relentless emails to the various recipients. What was ultimately before the Tribunal on the first day of hearing consisted of thousands of emails, taking up hundreds of printed pages in several lever arch files as part of the Tribunal Book, the majority in the same tone as those emails set out above.
2. The correspondence by the respondent that was the subject of allegation 1 was particularised in schedule A of the Board's referral to the Tribunal, which forms part of Annexure A to this decision. The Board's case in respect of allegation 1 was that the respondent's communications included communications that were:

(A) harassing, including but not limited to the following: > > (I) 'People like you don't derserve [sic] a badge. You deserve the ditch to die in.'; > > (I) 'Hey [de-identified], you fat cunt.'; > > (II) '... We are just getting started, you fat incompetent fuck!'; > > (III) '... you should write a letter today stating your exit from life'; > > (IV) ' What's your background you low life scumbag? HR? Arts degree? Bring it on you champagne socialist cunt.'; > > (V) 'You're no different than the Catholic Church protecting paedophiles.'; and > > (VI) '... these cunts think they're special and important. They're nobody small cunts who will someday learn that being a woke asslicking cunt is ultimately a dead end.' > > (B) abusive, including but not limited to the following: > > (I) 'Hope you can look yourself in the mirror and realise you are nothing but a nazi cunt'; > > (II) 'To the cunts at ahpra licking the assholes of Taspol, bring it on!'; > > (III) 'To the Marxist cunts at Taspol, ombudsman, integrity, ahpra, hmt, nhpo - you must hate it when you are called out for the cancel culture/ mind controlled twats you are!'; and > > (IV) '... you're a bunch of woke cunts who support one another. But a barrister will fuck your ass! Hard!'; > > (C) intimidating, including but not limited to the following: > > (I) 'lol! I can't wait to fuck with you cunts!'; > > (II) 'You got it way fucking wrong! Now you're gonna learn a lesson. I promise you cunts!'; > > (III) 'Do I respect you in relation to this matter, fuck no. Do I respect Taspol, fuck no. Do I invite you to take action, fuck yes I do.'; > > (II) 'Am I connected to powerful people and money? Yes! At your own peril.'; and > > (III) 'Should I drive past one of you in the ditch, I'll keep driving. Any of your family members, same' > > (D) threatening, including but not limited to the following: > > (I) 'When we meet I'm gonna call you out as the gutless cunt you are'; > > (II) 'Taspol, > > You seemed very concerned about me. Would you like the names of your officers with substance abuse disorders etc , mental disorders? I have a list!... 'Based on his logic, think the snr staff at Taspol need their medical history exposed. Corrupt cunts deserve what they deserve!'; ... Should we look into [de-identified] medical history? Hey [de-identified], how bout yours?. [de-identified], you're too easy mate. The diversity hire idiot is like shooting fish in a barrel.' > > (III) 'I spit on you cunts.'; and > > (IV) 'People like [de-identified] are gonna get their heads kicked in > > if they step on my property.'; > > (E) purporting to convey a refusal to treat a cohort of patients / potential patients, namely members of Tasmania Police and their families, including: > > (I) 'I'll leave you and your family for dead in the ditch. I assure you. > > Don't look after corrupt cunts like you.'; > > (II) 'Hey [de-identified], for the record - you're a gutless cunt too. Hope you and your family never need assistance!'; and > > (III) 'Your entire police force will never get one ounce of treatment by me'; > > (F) disparaging and/or derogatory toward a class of persons in the community, namely; > > (I) persons who identify with or use particular gender pronouns, including but not limited to: > > (1) 'You gutless cunts like he/him - on the stand facing clear evidence in repute of what he/she/it has put on the record'; and > > (2) 'You see HE/Him/alex or whatever you are'; and/or > > (II) persons with disability, including but not limited to: > > (1) 'You dumb retarted [sic] looking fuck wit.. Try again you cunt!'; > > (2) 'You woke cunts think that acting on behalf of a retarded staff sgt I never met', and/or > > (G) otherwise unprofessional, inappropriate and/or inconsistent with suitability to hold registration as a medical practitioner;

3. Within a few days of the Board sending the correspondence to the respondent's solicitors on 2 November 2022, the respondent initiated what proved to be an ongoing barrage of further email communications to Tasmania Police and to other entities and people, which continued in the same vein with regularity of at least every few days, and was ongoing at the time of the ultimate hearing of the referral in March 2025.
4. As I have indicated above, at the conclusion of the first day of hearing, I found allegation 1 proved. I found that the respondent, between November 2022 and May 2024 sent email correspondence to AHPRA, Tasmanian regulatory and professional bodies, Commonwealth regulatory bodies, political officials, members of Tasmanian Parliament and/or members of Federal Parliament that was harassing, abusive, intimidating, threatening, derogatory to a class of persons in the community, purporting to convey a refusal to treat a cohort of patients / potential patients, namely member of Tasmania Police and their families; and /or otherwise unprofessional, inappropriate and/or inconsistent with suitability to hold registration as a medical practitioner.
5. I am satisfied that the respondent's conduct amounts to professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of that term under s 5 of the National Law. I have no hesitation in concluding that the respondent's language and tone in the emails that are in evidence before me would be considered by the vast majority of the public and the respondent's professional peers as being generally offensive and unacceptable, and substantially below the standard reasonably expected of any registered medical practitioner.
6. I am also satisfied that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition of that term within the meaning of the National Law. I accept the Board's submission that paragraph (c) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' expressly applies whether or not the conduct in question occurs in connection with a practitioner's practice of the profession. I have no hesitation in concluding that the respondent's conduct that is the subject of allegation 1 is conduct that ought to be regarded as being inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to be registered to practise as a medical practitioner. His conduct falls well short of the expected standards of conduct of a medical practitioner expressed in the Code. I consider it is likely that most patients seeking treatment from the respondent in a professional capacity would be shocked by the number, content and tone of the emails sent by the respondent, and that other members of the medical profession of good standing would find the conduct of the respondent to be disgraceful.

A National Board may require a registered health practitioner or student to undergo a health assessment if the Board reasonably believes, because of a notification or for any other reason, that the practitioner or student has, or may have, an impairment.

2. On 5 May 2023 AHPRA, on behalf of the Board, sent correspondence to the respondent by email which included the following:

On 8 November 2022 AHPRA received a notification about you under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law). > > On 24 April 2023 the Medical Board of Australia formed the reasonable belief that a health issue may be impairing your capacity to practise safely. The Board decided to require you to undergo an independent health assessment under s 169 of the National Law.

The respondent was advised that the Board would appoint a psychiatrist to carry out the assessment and that an AHPRA staff member would be in touch with the respondent to arrange the appointment at a convenient time. The respondent was also advised:

If you do not undergo the health assessment the Board may continue to take proceedings under the National Law.

1. The Board submits that I could be satisfied that Dr Shaw received the Board's correspondence of 5 May 2023 because of the responding "barrage of email correspondence" sent by the respondent. There is no doubt that the respondent received the email from AHPRA. The 'barrage of email correspondence' commencing on 5 May 2023 to AHPRA, the Integrity Commission, the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman, the Tasmanian Ombudsman, Tasmania Police, the Tasmanian Attorney General and others included, at 8:04pm:

Hey ahpra. > > My response to your paperwork. > > Fuck you! > > Signed > > Dr Regan Shaw

You're gonna deregister me.

Nothing less. Your rationale will require evidence. Much like [police officer H]. I don't believe it holds up in court. I am the victim of serious crimes that were not dealt with appropriately. On record. You are their bitch. Never a risk to my patients. Never a complaint. Try your luck cunts.

1. The emails continue, in a similar vein, every few minutes until 9:30pm and then recommence at 1:14pm on 6 May 2023, and again continued every few minutes until 7:21pm that evening.

On 7 May 2023 at 10:58am, the respondent commenced emailing again with:

Had a think, better if you deregister me first.

No assessment unless you can provide good evidence regarding risk to my patients.

Ahpra/nhpo, still need that evidence regarding [police office H] vexatious complaint.

Ahpra, need evidence to support your concern for patient safety. Have a complaint from patient or co-worker, if so I will consider. Otherwise acting on behalf of an organisation how you did wrong by me, shame on you.

The emails continued until 5:20pm that evening, and then recommenced on 8 May 2023 at 5:34pm.

1. On 19 June 2023 AHPRA sent correspondence to the respondent by email giving him notice of an assessment appointment with a psychiatrist to take place on 28 August 2023. The respondent was also asked to provide pathology samples, and provided with the forms that he was asked to complete and return to AHPRA for the pathology testing to take place.
2. On the same date the respondent commenced sending a string of emails in response to AHPRA including, on 20 June 2023:

As a principle, I will reject your silly request for pathology without evidence related to my practise. > > But I will protect myself! You people are a disgusting bunch of tyrants, no different to Taspol. > > Hate that I don't respect you? Can't wait for the hearing cause I'm going to put you people on trial! I assure you.

3. On Friday 23 August 2023 the respondent emailed AHPRA:

I received a text from > > [the psychiatrist with whom the assessment had been arranged by AHPRA] regarding your request. I declined. Advised you previously. Please cancel the appt so an individual who requires his service can book in.

4. The respondent did not attend the health assessment on 28 August 2023. He did not complete pathology as requested by AHPRA on behalf of the Board.
5. On 31 August 2023 AHPRA wrote to the respondent again, giving the respondent another opportunity to complete the required pathology testing and to organise another health assessment appointment.
6. On 31 August 2023 at 5:57pm the respondent responded by email to AHPRA:

No, thank you. We have discussed this. Should you believe that I am a risk to public safety please deregister me.

I won't be harassed by a bunch of nazis. You will never see a drop of my blood or a piece of my hair....

1. In an email to the Tribunal on 10 September 2024 in respect to the Board's direction to attend a health assessment, the respondent stated:

When it comes to their request for a health assessment, that will require a complaint/concern from a patient or colleague, as I advised them. Since the time of their request I continue to work professionally and competently without concern or complaint. This is not Nazi Germany and unless there is a reasonable professionally based rationale, never going to happen.

2. As I have indicated above, at the conclusion of the first day of hearing, I found allegation 2 proved. I was satisfied that on or about 28 August 2023, Dr Shaw failed to attend a scheduled health assessment as required under s 169 of the National Law, without reasonable excuse.
3. It goes without saying that the regulation of registered health practitioners under the National Law applies to all such practitioners. The entire regulatory system breaks down if a practitioner is able to choose, or dictate, which parts of, or under what circumstances, the system will apply to that practitioner.
4. I am satisfied that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of that term under s 5 of the National Law.

1. On 9 February 2023 two police officers attended the respondent's home to serve court documents on him. He was subsequently charged with using abusive language to a police officer in the performance or execution of their duty, contrary to s 34B(1)(b) of the Police Offences Act 1935 (the Police Offences Act).
2. The respondent was convicted in the Magistrates Court of the offence on 8 May 2023.
3. The Board relied upon a Certificate of Conviction issued by the Magistrates Court on 25 January 2024, and a transcript of the Magistrates Court hearing, as well as a copy of the body-worn recording provided by Tasmania Police of the incident which led to the charge against the respondent.
4. The facts, as read out by the prosecutor to the Magistrates Court included:

On 9 February police have attended [the respondent's address] to serve court documents on [the respondent]. Whilst police were reading through the court documents [the respondent's] become agitated and started an emotional rant about a previous email and phone call interactions with police. He's repeatedly called the members, he was speaking about cunts, and began to point angrily at the attending police officers and calling them a pack of cunts. > > [The respondent] was asked to stop abusing police. He pointed, and stated to the complainant, you're on my property cunt. The complainant asked, what did you call me? to which the defendant confirmed, a cunt.

5. I have viewed the police body-worn video footage, which was included in the material relied upon by the Board, and am satisfied the above is a reasonable summary of what transpired on 9 February 2023 involving the respondent and two Tasmania Police officers.
6. The respondent did not appear, and the learned Magistrate proceeded, on an endorsed plea of guilty on the summons, to record a conviction and impose a fine on the respondent.
7. I note the comments of the learned Magistrate at the time the respondent was convicted in the Magistrates Court on 8 May 2023:

....Just for the court record I'll note that in summary his explanation is that police attended to serve him with an order of the Court, and I accept that they're exercising their duty, or undertaking their duty as police officers, the matter was on private property, and that for, whether for valid reasons or not, the defendant appears to believe there is some sort of vendetta against him by police, his conduct was absolutely unacceptable. Police have a very difficult role to play, and they were simply undertaking their duties at the time that the defendant commenced his rant at them, and obviously used abusive language. > > There isn't any excuse, but it sounds like there's some history about it, so there is at least an explanation, although it seems to me not a particularly good one.

8. As the Tribunal noted in Nursing and Midwifery Board v Maher [2020] VCAT 1125 at [66]:

It is self-evident that persons of good repute abide by the law.

We agree that criminal conduct generally may undermine the profession's good standing and the inherent trust between the profession and the public necessary for the effective discharge of professional functions.

1. As indicated above, at the conclusion of the first day of hearing, I found allegation 3 proved. I am satisfied that the respondent has engaged in the conduct as alleged. Whilst the conviction under the Police Offences Act was not directly related to the respondent's practice as a medical practitioner, I am satisfied that the nature of the conviction is such that the respondent has engaged in unprofessional conduct which amounts to professional misconduct within the meaning of the National Law

1. The final allegation made by the Board was that the respondent had failed to give notice within seven days of being charged with the offence that led to the conviction that was the subject of allegation 3.
2. Section 130 of the National Law provides:

1. A registered health practitioner or student must, within 7 days after 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. > > ... > > (3) In this section - > > "relevant event" , in relation to a registered health practitioner, means - > > (a) the practitioner is charged with - > > (i) ... > > (ii) an offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more, whether in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere..

3. Section 34B of the Police Offences Act relevantly provides:

(1) A person shall not - > > (a) ... > > (b) threaten, intimidate, or use abusive language to any such police officer whilst in the performance or execution of his duty or a person assisting a police officer therein... > > (1A) A person who contravenes a provision of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding 100 penalty units or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.

4. The Board relies upon the transcript of the Magistrates Court hearing where the prosecutor advised the Court:

Police later called the Defendant on the 10th in response to a call he made, and during this call he was advised he'd receive a Summons for the abusive language on the 9th

5. The Board says that the respondent was charged with the offence on or around 9 February 2023, and by virtue of s 130 of the National Law, was required to inform the Board of having been charged within seven days, that is, by 16 February 2023.
6. The Board conceded that the respondent had given notification of having been charged on 25 March 2023, when he emailed AHPRA:

Just an FYI, I have been summonsed by Taspol for use of abusive language. Seems they've stooped to the level of the language police. Too bad they weren't as interested in commonwealth offences and serious assaults. This is a clown joke show, no doubt. I am now aware of my requirement to inform you. So I am. And I will plead guilty, have no regrets. This whole mess will be litigated. Their attempts to intimidate me and silence me, I could give two shits.

7. The Board, in its outline of submissions relied upon what it said was an admission by the respondent that he had failed to comply with the requirements of s 130 of the National Law. On 30 January 2024 AHPRA wrote to the respondent giving him notice of the investigation progress and inviting him to provide a final submission and/or written response. One of the matters put to the respondent as a 'concern currently under investigation' was:

Whether you provided the Board with notice of a relevant event required under s 130 of the national Law within 7 days of becoming aware of the event occurring. The relevant event being charged on 9 February 2023 with use of abusive language to a police officer whilst in the execution of their duty under Section 34B(1)(b) of the Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas), which, if found guilty, is liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding 100 penalty units or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.

8. The 'admission' relied upon by the Board was contained in an email that the respondent sent to AHPRA, later the same day, in response to that particular 'concern', the respondent said simply "Yes".
9. Counsel for the Board, in the hearing, rightly pointed out that the respondent's "yes" could be considered to be ambiguous but submitted that there was other circumstantial evidence upon which I could be satisfied that the allegation is made out.
10. I am not satisfied that the respondent's email response to AHPRA on 30 January 2024 was an admission that the respondent had failed to inform the Board about the charge within the requisite time. I have also considered the other evidence referred to by the Board, but I am not satisfied that there is any evidence before me about the date that the respondent actually received the summons in question. Because of that, I cannot be satisfied that the respondent failed to comply with s 130 of the National Law.
11. It was on this basis that I found the Board's allegation 4 to not be proved, and dismissed the referral insofar as it related to allegation 4.

Determinations under the National Law - relevant principles

1. Where, under the National Law, a responsible tribunal finds that a practitioner has engaged in professional misconduct, the principles that guide the imposition of determinations are well recognised.
2. Those principles were summarised in Medical Board of Australia & Pharmacy Board of Australia v Lee [2019] VCAT 311 at [20] as follows:
   • the purpose of the imposition of determinations is to protect the public;
   • determinations are intended to maintain proper ethical and professional standards for the protection of the public and also for the protection of the profession in the sense of maintaining stature and integrity in the eyes of the public;
   • determinations should in no way be punitive;
   • the objectives of determinations can be achieved by specific deterrence, i.e. the deterrence of the person concerned from further inappropriate conduct, specific deterrence, by general deterrence, i.e. the deterrence of other practitioners minded to conduct themselves similarly, and by facilitation of rehabilitation on the part of the practitioner;
   • personal matters such as shame, personal ordeal, and financial difficulty are of little relevance save insofar as they contribute to the specific deterrence of the practitioner;
   • the likelihood of recidivism, or, put another way, an assessment of the ongoing risk posed by the practitioner, should be central to the imposition of a determination;
   • the degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight into his or her conduct is relevant to the assessment of the continuing risk posed by the practitioner;
   • insight can include as an understanding of the nature of the conduct, an acceptance that the conduct was wrong, an appreciation of why the practitioner engaged in that conduct, empathy with the consequences, and /or a willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and to do that which is necessary to avoid further transgressions; and
   • any form of official censure is of consequence. It has been held that "a reprimand should not be considered a 'slap over the wrist'.
3. I accept the Board's submission that the Tribunal must also have regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the National Law, and in particular the main guiding principle that is set out at s 3A(1) of the National Law:

The main guiding principle of the national registration and accreditation scheme is that the following are paramount - > > (a) protection of the public; > > (b) public confidence in the safety of services provided by registered health practitioners and students.

1. The Board says that the Tribunal in this case should
   • reprimand the respondent
   • cancel the respondent's registration, and
   • disqualify the respondent from reapplying for registration for a period of six years.
2. The Board says it is appropriate for the Tribunal, in assessing the determinations that ought to be made, to have regard to not only the conduct of the respondent that was the subject of the referral, but also the respondent's conduct since the date the referral was filed, up until the date of the final hearing.
3. The Board submits that guidance can be taken from the VCAT decision Medical Board of Australia v WEQ [2024] VCAT 728 where the Tribunal had regard to the practitioner's conduct in the proceedings as being relevant to questions of insight and rehabilitation.
4. The Board also submits that guidance can be taken from other relevant cases, although acknowledging that each case ultimately turns on its merits. In particular, the Board refers to the following:
   • Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Willox [2019] VCAT 1180 (Willox), where the Tribunal
     • found that the practitioner had engaged in sustained, offensive, irrational, threatening, harassing, intimidating and/or unnecessary communications to staff, AHPRA's investigating officers and two female neighbours
     • found that the practitioner had been found guilty of a breach of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 by reason of his harassing communications
     • found that the practitioner had failed to attend a scheduled health assessment, and obstructed the carrying out of drug screening
     • found that the practitioner had frustrated the undertaking of the hair test by having his hair cut so short that the test could not be undertaken
     • determined that the practitioner's conduct amounted to professional misconduct pursuant to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition
     • reprimanded the practitioner, cancelled his registration and disqualified him from applying for registration for 8 years
   • Medical Board of Australia v Stephen Hindley [2023] TASCAT 223 (Hindley), where the Tribunal
     • found the practitioner had engaged in inappropriate conduct with a patient
     • found that the practitioner had engaged in improper communication with AHPRA's investigating officers
     • found that the practitioner had made public statements, including on social media, that were disparaging, demeaning, intimidating and/or threatening towards AHPRA officers, police officers and/or elected public officials
     • determined that the practitioner's conduct amounted to professional misconduct
     • reprimanded the practitioner, cancelled his registration, disqualified him from applying for registration for 4 years and prohibited the practitioner from using the title "Doctor' or providing any health service over the same period.
   • Medical Board of Australia v Ellis [2024] VCAT 113 (Ellis), where the Tribunal
     • found, amongst other findings, that the practitioner had made social media posts, which were professionally discourteous, disparaging and/or denigrating of other health practitioners, health services and groups within society
     • determined that the practitioner's social media activity constituted professional misconduct pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition
     • reprimanded the practitioner, cancelled the practitioner's registration, disqualified the practitioner from applying for registration for 1 year and prohibited the practitioner from using the title 'Doctor' or providing any health service over the same period
   • Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v EEB [2021] VCAT 662 where the Tribunal
     • found, amongst other matters, that the practitioner had failed to comply with a requirement to attend a health assessment on two occasions, or provide any reasonable excuse for her failure to attend
     • determined that the practitioner's failure to attend her scheduled health assessment constituted professional misconduct pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition
     • cancelled the practitioner's registration
5. The Board also notes the caution that was directed towards the respondent by the Board on 2 November 2022, and says that the respondent's regulatory history in that regard is relevant to any determination under this referral.

1. In relation to the respondent's conduct during the period that these proceedings have been on foot, the Board says that the solicitors for the Board, Minter Ellison, received nearly 700 emails from the respondent between the matter being referred to the Tribunal, and the day the Board's further submissions as to determinations were filed, including approximately 170 emails from the date of the Tribunal's decision on factual findings and characterisation on 11 December 2024.
2. The Board notes that emails were sent not only to the Board's solicitors, but also to the Board itself and a number of politicians and political and regulatory agencies, and submitted that the emails were harassing, abusive, intimidating, threatening, derogatory and/or otherwise unprofessional and inappropriate.
3. The Board filed and relied upon a number of the emails in question, and particularly noted emails that included the following statements:

(a) 'To ahpra lawyers, defame me cunts - I dare you!'; > > (b) 'Hey [Premier of Tasmania], as referred to by these cunts. I'd suggest you get your shit together cunt! You're gonna answer for the Taspol and the integrity commission. You're a dumb cunt farmer I know. But the buck stops with you! Corrupt police, integrity, a useless cunt like [Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management for Tasmania]...' ; > > (c) 'Fuck you! Spit on you cunts for your role in this!' ; > > (d) 'I wouldn't give these cunts a squirt of piss if they were on fire. They are a disgusting organisation like Taspol.'; > > (e) 'Good thing we have eat shit law firm representing ahpra and taspol! We are all safe and rest assured these cunts are the arbiters of truth! Like I'd give these cunts a squirt of piss.' ; > > (f) 'To the eat shit lawfirm representing ahpra, understand you are a fucking disgrace, freedom of speech communist cunt, like ahpra....' ; > > (g) 'To the scumbag lawyers defending ahpra, be sure you understand the he/him bullshit woke nonsense you tickled ahpra with. I call woke bullshit nonsense!'; > > (h) 'Let the Board know, a private investigator was hired tot [sic] investigate each and every one of them year + ago. Good, bad and ugly. Just a heads up...'I'm fucking with you lol! , Maybe! Think you should get the drug and alcohol testing in case I am not - blood, hair and urine.... Please forward me with your results....' ; > > (i) 'Fuck you. I'm your worst nightmare, and no risk to anyone. Just a failed attempt to shut me up and defame me.'; > > (j) 'You may see my "number of emails" as a problem. Problem is cunt, we live in a democracy. I'll express my right every single day and a chump like you means fuck all to me. I'll contact every government/tax payer funded institution til I'm blue in the face. Cunts like you have no say. Butt hurt sucks Ahpra/ME/shit solicitor hired'; > > (k) 'Your shitty bumbling lawyer at tascat is of no interest to me...Would have expected a more articular idiot given his billing!'; > > (l) 'Tasmania Police are a fucking disgrace... These low iq dumb cunts need a reality check. I'm gonna take a few million from these dumb asses for their stupid ideology.'; > > (m) 'Then I'm gonna fuck taspol, ahpra and the nhpo hard! You limp dicked Chinese owned communist fuck wits will do nothing!'; > > (n) 'To MinterElson - do your best you fucking cunts! Request more than 6 years you fucking dirty Chinese owned cunts!'; > > (o) 'I look forward to meeting you F2F one day... Thanks for the early retirement you tax payer scab cunt. Cunts like you cause death, poor health and waste taxpayer dollars. Your're the lowest of the low lazy cunt'; > > (p) 'To minster Elison, I'll be happy to pay a 2000 dollar fine for my language as it relates to this matter. Have me deregistered, and ahpra, taspol, nhpo, ombudsman, integrity, government lose all public confidence - like the paedos at taspol. Your choice cunts.'

4. The Board also submitted that the respondent forwarded to various, and similar, recipients emails that made statements that sought to undermine the authority of the Tribunal and/or AHPRA as the health regulator. The Board filed and relied upon a number of emails in support of that submissions, and particularly noted emails that included the following statements:

(a) 'Your professional misconduct bullshit means nothing to me... Go for it cunts! I look forward to your kangaroo court and the cunts you hired.'; > > (b) 'Despite ahpras attempts to send me to their bullshit tribunal. Fuck you ahpra!' > > (c) 'Ahpra chooses to entertain this kind of shit then wants to police my language for corruption - fuck them. This is not communist China cunts. You've yet to provide his evidence yet you've booked a gulag tribunal. Let's take this to the Supreme Court cunts.'; > > (d) 'Let the goons at the tribunal know I could give two shits about their decision.'; > > (e) 'Yet these cunts at ahpra want me for bad language. Fuck them! Fuck their tribunal!'; > > (f) 'Not some bullshit tribunal in an attempt to defame me - fuck you ahpra/mintster elisin [sic] (or whoever your Chinse language police owners are)' > > (g) 'FYI, NHPo the tribunal is a witch hunt joke and you've got a tonne to answer for supporting taspol and ahpra in this matter.'; > > (h) 'The weaponization of the medical board by a lazy police force who is sick with ideological possession, not on! Not to mention an impotent ombudsman and integrity commission.'; > > (i) 'To AHPRA and NHPO, you're a disgusting disgrace to the profession....Minster Ellison are fuck boys on your behalf and their opinion means shit.'; and > > (j) 'I will never communicate in a professional manner with institutions of power who do wrong and act unprofessional. That would be Taspol, AHPRA and NHPO. Minster Elison can go fuck themselves defending these disgusting cunts.'.

5. The Board also referred to other emails where it said the respondent's communications were unprofessional, inappropriate and inconsistent with the holding of registration as a medical practitioner, including where the respondent had disclosed confidential health information of a patient, and referred to a member of Tasmania Police as a 'diversity hire'.

1. In Nursing and Midwifery Board v Little [2020] VCAT 687 at [39] - [40] the Tribunal, in relation to general deterrence, said:

General deterrence requires consideration of whether there is a need to signal to other members of the profession that adverse consequences will follow such conduct, and thereby deter them from the same conduct, in the interests of maintaining professional standards and public confidence in the profession. In assessing the need for general deterrence, the Tribunal takes into account the nature and gravity of the conduct and the potential consequences of others engaging in similar conduct.

2. There is a need for general deterrence.
3. Overall, the communications by the respondent directed towards Tasmania Police, the Tasmanian Ombudsman and the Tasmanian Integrity Commission that are threatening, offensive and intimidatory are completely unacceptable, and would have the potential to undermine the confidence of the public in the medical profession. This is so, irrespective of how badly the respondent feels he has been treated by Tasmania Police, or any other public entity.
4. In particular, the conduct of the respondent in his communications to AHPRA, and his refusal to submit to a health assessment, requires significant denunciation. Members of the medical profession, as well as practitioners registered in other health professions, need to know that any lack of co-operation with AHPRA as part of an investigatory process will be viewed very unfavourably. Public confidence in registered health professions is based significantly on confidence in the regulatory process. Contempt for the regulator and the role of the National Boards, and refusal to engage appropriately in the investigative process undermines not only the regulatory system, but public confidence in the registered health professions overall.

1. I have particularly given weight to the need for specific deterrence in the present case.
2. It appears that the caution issued by the Board to the respondent on 2 November 2022 had no effect on the respondent's conduct in relation to his communications with Tasmania Police. The disregard for the Board's caution is consistent with the respondent's insulting and dismissive attitude towards AHPRA, and also his high-handed dismissal of the direction that he undertake a health assessment.
3. There is no basis upon which it could be thought that the respondent has any insight into his behaviour. On the contrary, a fair reading of the entirety of the respondent's communications, including what could reasonably be seen to be an escalation of his combative and offensive language, suggests a complete lack of insight.

1. In the recent decision of Pharmacy Board of Australia v Stogiannis [2025] VCAT 563 the Tribunal referred at [61] - [62] to circumstances where it may be appropriate to impose a global penalty:

Generally, global penalties should be avoided in disciplinary proceedings, but may be utilised where the charges are "inextricably interwoven". In Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Williams (Legal Practice) [2022] VCAT 806 (15 July 2022), Quigley J President of VCAT ('Williams'), the Tribunal referred to the earlier decision of Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374 ('Stirling'), noting that preferring individual penalties: > > ... allows for a sentence on one count to stand where a conviction for another count is quashed. Secondly, it is easier to assess whether a penalty is manifestly excessive or inadequate when each sentence is clearly pronounced on each count. Thirdly, by sentencing for separate offences, the court makes it clear to the public what the penalty for each offence is, thus assisting in the process of general deterrence. Finally, as in this case, adherence to this rule prevents conduct from one charge being used as an aggravating factor in assessing the penalty for another charge. > > In Williams at [145], the Tribunal found that a global penalty may be appropriate: > > ... where the charged conduct is constituted by a course of behaviour as opposed to a set of separate events. In these circumstances where the facts of the case are so inextricably interwoven as to make it difficult to meet a clear standard of prescription, a global penalty may be applied.

2. In the present case I think the circumstances of each of the findings of professional misconduct are so interwoven that it is appropriate to impose a global penalty.
3. A reprimand is appropriate. I repeat what I said in Medical Board of Australia v Adams [2025] TASCAT 125 (Adams)[4], that a reprimand is a formal denunciation of a practitioner's conduct. A reprimand is a form of official censure and the publication of the Tribunal's reasons will serve to reinforce the official nature of the censure, and act as a constant reminder to the respondent of the importance of adhering to the standards of his profession in the future.
4. I consider that cancellation of the respondent's registration is also appropriate, for the purposes of general deterrence, specific deterrence and the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession.
5. The Board has submitted that a six year period of disqualification from applying for registration ought to be imposed on the respondent. The period sought by the Board is consistent with the periods of disqualification imposed by the Willox, Hindley and Ellis. The respondent declined to participate in the second day of hearing, and has therefore not taken the opportunity to address the determinations sought by the Board.
6. I determine that the respondent will be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of six years from the date of this decision.

1. The Board seeks an order that the respondent pay its costs of this proceeding.
2. By email of 14 March 2025, the respondent sent a number of emails to 18 recipients, including the Board, the Board's solicitors, a number of members of parliament (both state and federal), the Tasmanian Integrity Commission, Tasmania Police, and the Tribunal, between 5.55pm and 9.32 pm. The emails included an email at 7.13 pm:

If these cunts /ME/Ahpra think I'm contributing a cent to this bullshit witch-hunt - they can go fuck themselves! Don't even consider requesting me paying for this bullshit! If you consider it, know I'm tripling my suit against you, you corrupt cunts. > > I'm gonna out ahpra, nhpo, taspol and the Tasmanian government for the corrupt woke cunts they are.

3. I infer the respondent opposes any order for costs being made against him, although he did not attend the second day of hearing to make any formal submissions in that regard.
4. In Adams, in relation to an application for costs, I decided that s 195 of the National Law is the relevant provision under which a costs application is to be determined in this jurisdiction.
5. Section 195 of the National Law provides that a Tribunal may make any order about costs that it considers to be appropriate in the proceedings. The Tribunal has, under s 195 of the National Law, an unfettered discretion as to costs. I noted in Adams that although an unfettered discretion in relation to costs may generally be considered to lead to a starting position that 'costs follow the event', this is not necessarily applicable to regulatory matters, as opposed to civil litigation.
6. In Adams, I also referred to Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia v Lau [2025] VCAT 35 at [81] - [83] where the Tribunal accepted the principles relevant to the exercise of the discretion as to costs as being:
   • there is no presumption that each party will bear its own costs
   • the National law confers a broad discretion on the Tribunal to award costs against a party
   • although the Tribunal's broad discretion is unconstrained by the considerations set out in section 109(3) of the VCAT Act [which is expressed in similar terms to s 40 of the HPT Act] some or all of those considerations may be relevant in any given case
   • the discretion is not 'at large' and must be exercised judicially, by reference only to considerations relevant to its exercise and upon facts connected with or leading up to the litigation
   • the purpose of an order for costs is to indemnify or compensate the party in whose favour it is made and not to punish the party against whom it is made
   • the discretion conferred under s 195 of the National Law does not equate to an expectation that costs will follow the event
   • There may be cases where very serious allegations are found proven against a practitioner, but where an award of costs will still not be appropriately made, as all the circumstances of the case need to be considered
7. Apart from attending the two pre-hearing directions conferences, the respondent has declined to engage in any meaningful way with the proceedings. Rather, for the entire period that the proceedings were on foot, the respondent continued to engage in his practice of sending derogatory and offensive emails to multiple recipients, including the Board, AHPRA and the Board's solicitors.
8. I accept the submission made on behalf of the Board, in relation to the costs application, that the respondent has conducted the proceedings in such a way as to unreasonably add to the costs of the proceedings - in that the Board's solicitors would have had to read every email that was sent to, or copied to, the Board, AHPRA or the email inbox that the Board's solicitors had to set up to separately deal with the respondent's email traffic.
9. I determine that the respondent is to pay the Board's costs of the proceedings, assessed at 90% of the scale of costs applicable under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000

(a) Dr Regan Shaw is reprimanded.

(b) Dr Regan Shaw's registration as a medical practitioner is cancelled.

(c) Dr Regan Shaw is disqualified from applying for registration as a medical practitioner for a period of six years from the date of these orders.

(d) Dr Regan Shaw is to pay the Medical Board of Australia's costs of the proceeding, to be assessed at 90% of the scale of costs applicable under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 as at the date that the relevant work was undertaken, to be agreed or taxed by a Registrar of the Tribunal and to be paid within 28 days of agreement or the issue of a certificate of taxation whichever first occurs.

The allegations in respect of Dr Regan Shaw (Dr Shaw) referred to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) by the Medical Board of Australia (Board) pursuant to section 193(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) are:

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of section 5 of the National Law;

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law,

in that, from in or around November 2022 to in or around May 2024, Dr Shaw sent email correspondence to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra), Tasmanian regulatory and professional bodies, Commonwealth regulatory bodies, political officials, members of the Tasmanian Parliament and/or Members of the Federal Parliament that was:

(i) harassing;

(ii) abusive;

(iii) intimidating;

(iv) threatening;

(v) derogatory to a class of persons in the community;

(vi) purporting to convey a refusal to treat a cohort of patients / potential patients, namely members of Tasmania Police and their families; and/or

(vii) otherwise unprofessional, inappropriate and/or inconsistent with suitability to hold registration as a medical practitioner.

(i) on or about 13 January 2008, Dr Shaw obtained registration as a medical practitioner;

(ii) on various occasions between on or about 6 November 2022 to on or about 30 May 2024, Dr Shaw sent email correspondence (Correspondence) from the email address [respondent's email address];

(iii) in relation to the Correspondence outlined in particular 1(ii), Dr Shaw has identified himself as the operator of the email address and/or has signed the emails with his name;

(iv) on various occasions between on or about 6 November 2022 and on or about 30 May 2024, Dr Shaw sent the Correspondence to, variously, one or more of the following recipients:

• (F) the Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet;

• (G) the Tasmanian Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management;

• (I) the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman;

• (L) the National Secretary of the One Nation Party; and/or

• (M) the Opposition Leader, Hon Peter Dutton MP;

(v) the Correspondence the subject of Allegation 1 is particularised in Schedule A, and includes communications that were:

• (A) harassing, including but not limited to the following:

• (I) 'People like you don't derserve [sic] a badge. You deserve the ditch to die in.';

• (II) '... We are just getting started, you fat incompetent fuck!';

• (III) '... you should write a letter today stating your exit from life';

• (IV) ' What's your background you low life scumbag? HR? Arts degree? Bring it on you champagne socialist cunt.';

• (V) 'You're no different than the Catholic Church protecting paedophiles.'; and

• (VI) '... these cunts think they're special and important. They're nobody small cunts who will someday learn that being a woke asslicking cunt is ultimately a dead end.';

(B) abusive, including but not limited to the following:

• (I) 'Hope you can look yourself in the mirror and realise you are nothing but a nazi cunt';

• (II) 'To the cunts at ahpra licking the assholes of Taspol, bring it on!';

• (III) 'To the Marxist cunts at Taspol, ombudsman, integrity, ahpra, hmt, nhpo - you must hate it when you are called out for the cancel culture/ mind controlled twats you are!'; and

• (IV) '... you're a bunch of woke cunts who support one another. But a barrister will fuck your ass! Hard!';

(C) intimidating, including but not limited to the following:

• (I) 'lol! I can't wait to fuck with you cunts!';

• (II) 'You got it way fucking wrong! Now you're gonna learn a lesson. I promise you cunts!';

• (III) 'Do I respect you in relation to this matter, fuck no. Do I respect Taspol, fuck no. Do I invite you to take action, fuck yes I do.';

• (II) 'Am I connected to powerful people and money? Yes! At your own peril.'; and

• (III) 'Should I drive past one of you in the ditch, I'll keep driving. Any of your family members, same';

(D) threatening, including but not limited to the following:

• (I) 'When we meet I'm gonna call you out as the gutless cunt you are';

You seemed very concerned about me.

Would you like the names of your officers with substance abuse disorders etc , mental disorders?

I have a list!...

'Based on his logic, think the snr staff at Taspol need their medical history exposed. Corrupt cunts deserve what they deserve!';

... Should we look into [de-identified] medical history? Hey [de-identified], how bout yours?. [De-identified], you're too easy mate. The diversity hire idiot is like shooting fish in a barrel.'

• (IV) 'People like [de-identified] are gonna get their heads kicked in if they step on my property.';

(E) purporting to convey a refusal to treat a cohort of patients / potential patients, namely members of Tasmania Police and their families, including:

• (I) 'I'll leave you and your family for dead in the ditch. I assure you. Don't look after corrupt cunts like you.';

• (II) 'Hey [de-identified], for the record - you're a gutless cunt too. Hope you and your family never need assistance!'; and

• (III) 'Your entire police force will never get one ounce of treatment by me';

(F) disparaging and/or derogatory toward a class of persons in the community, namely;

• (I) persons who identify with or use particular gender pronouns, including but not limited to:

(1) 'You gutless cunts like he/him - on the stand facing clear evidence in repute of what he/she/it has put on the record'; and

(2) 'You see HE/Him/alex or whatever you are'; and/or

(II) persons with disability, including but not limited to:

(1) 'You dumb retarted [sic] looking fuck wit.. Try again you cunt!';

(2) 'You woke cunts think that acting on behalf of a retarded staff sgt I never met!'; and/or

(G) otherwise unprofessional, inappropriate and/or inconsistent with suitability to hold registration as a medical practitioner;

(vi) the conduct of Dr Shaw conduct as set out in particulars 1(ii) to (v) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Dr Shaw by the public or by Dr Shaw's professional peers - and is inconsistent with the Board's 'Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia' (as in effect from October 2020) (Code of Conduct), which relevantly provides that:

• 2.1 Professional values and qualities of doctors

While individual doctors have their own personal beliefs and values, there are certain professional values on which all doctors are expected to base their practice...

They must be honest, ethical and trustworthy.

Patients trust their doctors because they believe that, as well as being competent, their doctor will not take advantage of them and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion...

Good communication underpins every aspect of good medical practice. Professionalism includes self-awareness and self-reflection...

• 2.2 : Public comment and trust in the profession

The community trusts the medical profession. Every doctor has a responsibility to behave ethically to justify this trust.

While there are professional values that underpin good medical practice, all doctors have a right to have and express their personal views and values. However, the boundary between a doctor's personal and public profile can be blurred. As a doctor, you need to consider the effect of your public comments and your actions outside work, including online, related to medical and clinical issues, and how they reflect on your role as a doctor and on the reputation of the profession.

Respectful relationships with medical colleagues, other healthcare professionals, team members and patients are essential for safe patient care.

• 5.2 Respect for medical colleagues and other healthcare professionals

Good patient care is enhanced when there is mutual respect and clear communication between all healthcare professionals... Good medical practice involves: ...

5.2.2 Communicating clearly, effectively, courteously, respectfully and promptly with other doctors and healthcare professionals...

Most doctors work closely with a wide range of healthcare professionals. The care of patients is improved when there is mutual respect and clear communication, as well as an understanding of the responsibilities, capacities, constraints and ethical codes of each other's professions.

• 5.4 Discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment

There is no place for discrimination (including racism), bullying and sexual harassment in the medical profession or in healthcare in Australia [footnotes omitted]. Respect is a cornerstone of good medical practice and of patient safety. It is a feature of constructive relationships between medical practitioners, their peers and colleagues on healthcare teams, and with patients. Discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment adversely affect individual health practitioners, increase risk to patients and compromise effective teamwork by healthcare teams.

Good medical practice involves:

• 5.4.1 Being fair and showing respect for peers, colleagues, co-workers, students on healthcare teams and patients.

• 5.4.2 Not discriminating against, bullying or sexually harassing others

Doctors have a responsibility to contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the healthcare system

It is important to use healthcare resources wisely. Good medical practice involves: ...

7.2.2 Upholding the patient's right to gain access to the necessary level of healthcare and, whenever possible, helping them to do so.

10.1 Introduction

In professional life, doctors must display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community. This includes observing and practising the principles of ethical conduct.

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of section 5 of the National Law;

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law,

in that, on or about 28 August 2023, Dr Shaw failed to attend a scheduled health assessment as required by a decision of the Board under section 169 of the National Law.

(i) on or about 13 January 2008, Dr Shaw obtained registration as a medical practitioner;

(ii) on or about 24 April 2023, the Board decided to require Dr Shaw to undergo an independent health assessment pursuant to section 169 of the National Law;

(iii) on or about 5 May 2023, Ahpra corresponded with Dr Shaw in relation to the Board's decision particularised at paragraph (ii) above;

(iv) on or about 19 June 2023, Ahpra sent correspondence to Dr Shaw, in which it informed him that it had arranged for him to attend an independent health assessment which would occur on 28 August 2023;

(v) Dr Shaw failed to attend the health assessment particularised at (iv) above;

(vi) Dr Shaw failed to provide Ahpra with any reasonable excuse for his failure to attend the health assessment particularised at (iv) above; and

(vii) the conduct of Dr Shaw conduct as set out in particulars 1(i) to (vi) above is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Dr Shaw by the public or by Dr Shaw's professional peers - and is inconsistent with the Code of Conduct, which relevantly provides that:

8.3 Doctors' performance - you and your colleagues

The welfare of patients may be put at risk if a doctor is performing poorly. If you consider there is a risk to patients from poor performance, good medical practice involves: ...

8.3.2 If you know or suspect that you have a health condition that could adversely affect your judgement or performance, following the guidance in section 11.2

11.2 Your health

Good medical practice involves: ...

11.2.2 Seeking independent, objective advice when you need medical care, and being aware of the risks of self-diagnosis and self-treatment...

• 11.2.8 If you know or suspect that you have a health condition or impairment that could adversely affect your judgement, performance or your patient's health:

• not relying on your own assessment of the risk you pose to patients

• consulting your doctor about whether, and in what ways, you may need to modify your practice, and following the doctor's advice.

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of section 5 of the National Law;

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law,

in that, on or about 8 May 2023, Dr Shaw was convicted in the Magistrates' Court of Tasmania of one charge of use of abusive language to a police officer whilst in the performance or execution of their duty, contrary to section 34B(1)(b) of the Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas).

(i) on or about 13 January 2008, Dr Shaw obtained registration as a medical practitioner;

(ii) on or about 8 May 2023, Dr Shaw was found guilty and convicted in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania on one charge of use of abusive language to a police officer whilst in the performance or execution of their duty, contrary to section 34B(1)(b) of the Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas);

(iii) in relation to the conviction set out in paragraph (ii) above, the Magistrates Court of Tasmania fined Dr Shaw $400 and ordered him to pay $110.10 in Court costs; and

(iv) the conduct of Dr Shaw as set out in particulars (ii) - (iii) above is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Dr Shaw by the public or by Dr Shaw's professional peers - and is inconsistent with the Code of Conduct, which relevantly provides that:

• 2.1 Professionalism and the qualities of doctors

... [Doctors] must be honest, ethical and trustworthy...

Doctors have a responsibility to protect and promote the health of individuals and the community

• 2.2 Public comment and trust in the profession

The community trusts the medical profession. Every doctor has a responsibility to behave ethically to justify this trust.

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of section 5 of the National Law;

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law, in that, on or about 16 February 2023, Dr Shaw contravened section 130(1) of the National Law by failing to give notice within seven days that a relevant event occurred, namely that he had been charged with an offence punishable by 12 months' imprisonment or more.

(i) on or about 13 January 2008, Dr Shaw obtained registration as a medical practitioner;

(ii) under section 130 of the National Law, a registered health practitioner must, within 7 days after becoming aware that a relevant event has occurred in relation to the practitioner, give the Board written notice of the event;

(iii) a relevant event includes where the practitioner is charged, whether in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, with an offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more (s 130(3)(a)(ii));

(iv) on or about 9 February 2023, Dr Shaw was charged with the offence of use of abusive language to a police officer whilst in the performance or execution of their duty, contrary to section 34B(1)(b) of the Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas) (Offence);

(v) the Offence is punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more;

(vi) Dr Shaw failed to notify Ahpra and/or the Board within seven days of becoming aware that he had been charged by Tasmania Police with the Offence; and

(vii) the conduct of Dr Shaw as set out in particulars (iv) - (vi) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Dr Shaw by the public or by Dr Shaw's professional peers - and is inconsistent with the Code of Conduct, which relevantly provides that:

10.1 Introduction

In professional life, doctors must display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community. This includes observing and practising the principles of ethical conduct...

Doctors have statutory obligations under the National Law to report various proceedings or findings to the Medical Board of Australia [footnote omitted]. They also have professional obligations to report to the Board and their employer if they have had any limitations placed on their practice. Good medical practice involves:

• 10.3.1 Being aware of these reporting obligations.

• 10.3.2 Complying with any reporting obligations that apply to your practice...

[1]The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law was adopted as a law of this State by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Tasmania) Act 2010

[2] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

[3] These appear to be matters which occurred before the respondent was cautioned by the Board on 2 November 2022

[4] Citing Medical Board of Australia v Lee [2022] VCAT 667 at [36] - [37]