Having found the respondent engaged in professional misconduct as defined in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law), VCAT orders:

1. Under section 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.
2. Under section 196(4)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a medical practitioner for six years from the date of this Order.
3. Under section 196(4)(b) of the National Law, the respondent is prohibited from providing health services, whether as an employee, contractor, manager, or volunteer, and whether remunerated or not, unless he is registered as a health practitioner. This includes, but is not limited to, a prohibition on providing a health service and/or using any title, that utilises or refers to the respondent's skills and knowledge gained as a medical practitioner.

1. On 10 October 2024, the Medical Board of Australia (Board) made a referral to VCAT concerning Dr Richard Whitehouse (the referral). The referral followed a notification to the Board by Dr Whitehouse on 9 February 2023 that he had been charged with the offence of being in possession of child abuse material (CAM).
2. The referral raises one allegation: that Dr Whitehouse engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law, in that he accessed and possessed CAM, and a Court convicted Dr Whitehouse of two offences that established this conduct under ss 474.22A(1) and 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) respectively. A copy of the amended notice of allegations[1] (notice of allegations) is at Attachment A.
3. Dr Whitehouse surrendered his registration, and from 16 February 2023 he was no longer registered as a medical practitioner.
4. VCAT heard the referral on 13 January 2026. Dr Whitehouse did not attend the hearing, nor did a legal or other representative attend on his behalf. Before the hearing, the Board provided to VCAT a Statement of Agreed Facts, Findings and Determinations (Agreed Statement), signed by legal representatives on behalf of the Board and Dr Whitehouse. The Agreed Statement largely incorporates the notice of allegations, and includes additional information about matters such as the submissions made at the criminal trial and the Judge's Reasons for Sentence.
5. VCAT finds the allegation proved. The proved conduct of Dr Whitehouse is professional misconduct, being conduct that is both substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a medical practitioner and inconsistent with Dr Whitehouse being fit and proper to hold registration as a medical practitioner.
6. The conduct warrants disapproval in the strongest terms. VCAT has reprimanded Dr Whitehouse. VCAT has disqualified Dr Whitehouse from applying for registration for a period of six years. VCAT has also prohibited Dr Whitehouse from providing any other health services.

1. Dr Whitehouse did not attend the VCAT hearing, nor was he represented at the hearing.
2. Doogue George Defence Lawyers, the law firm representing Dr Whitehouse, in emails to VCAT of April 2025 and January 2026, advised that Dr Whitehouse would not participate in the hearing of the application.
3. The Board sent to VCAT and Dr Whitehouse's legal representative their submissions and key authorities on 2 December 2025.
4. VCAT, by order of 19 May 2025, confirmed the hearing date and recorded that neither Dr Whitehouse nor his legal representative would attend the hearing.

SUMMARY OF MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGATION

1. Dr Whitehouse was first registered as a medical practitioner in December 1984. At all times relevant to this matter, Dr Whitehouse worked as a general practitioner at a medical centre in Wonthaggi, Victoria.
2. On 9 February 2023 federal and state police attended Dr Whitehouse's home to execute search warrants, following a referral from US authorities about the purchase of CAM, and inquiry into the referral by the Australian Federal Police.
3. Dr Whitehouse was initially charged with seven counts of Access child abuse material using a carriage service and one count of Possess child abuse material obtained using a carriage service, contrary to the Criminal Code.
4. The matter resolved and a plea hearing before the County Court proceeded on 29 November 2023 for two offences: one of use carriage service to access CAM between about 6 August 2021 and 4 February 2023; and a second of possess or control CAM obtained or accessed using a carriage service, on 9 February 2023.
5. Dr Whitehouse on charge 1, was convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment; and on charge 2, was convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment. The total effective sentence ordered was one year and four months imprisonment. The Court ordered, however, that Dr Whitehouse be released after three months on strict conditions. As the two charges are class 2 registrable offences under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic), following sentence Dr Whitehouse became a registrable offender and is subject to reporting obligations for 15 years.
6. The Reasons for Sentence of the Court, published on 8 December 2023, provide a good summary of the offending conduct:

1. The AFP reviewed the activity within your Coinbase account and found that you had purchased two media packs on 6 August 2021 each for around A$200,[2] containing a total of 446 child abuse material files (CAM), which you admitted in your record of interview (ROI) to accessing (Charge 1 - access CAM). 2. `The purchase of these packs provided you with a link and password to an internet cloud-based storage database which contained CAM and adult pornographic material. The material within these packs was reviewed, and there was 300 images and 146 videos of child abuse material. 3. The child abuse depicted male and female children assessed to be between 3 and 15 years of age engaging in penetrative sexual acts with other children and webcam style videos with close-ups of children's genitalia.

7. The child abuse images depicted female and male children assessed to be between 5 and 14 years age, portraying children's genitalia, adult males ejaculating on children, children performing oral sex on an adult male and children performing oral sex on another child.
8. A number of the images were identified to be part of a series in which an adult female is offending on a male child, including holding the child's penis between her fingers, the child touching her vagina, cropped images that focus on the child's genitalia, the child with his face near the female's vagina and the adult female performing oral sex on the child.
9. A search warrant was executed at your residence on 9 February 2023. Your laptop was seized and found to contain further child abuse material. You possessed a total of 22 files (Charge 2), which were the files downloaded to your device including some within an encrypted folder.
10. There were 12 child abuse videos discovered in the downloads folder which depicted female children assessed to be between the ages of 5 and 14 removing their clothing and engaging in a close-up view of their genitalia or solo penetrative sexual acts. These videos were filmed with a 'webcam' view and range in length between 19 seconds and 7 minutes and 50 seconds.
11. There were 10 child abuse material photos discovered in a what was labelled a 'fantasy models' folder which depicted female children assessed to be between 12 and 14 in lingerie, in sexually provocative poses, and with close ups of the children's genitalia.
12. There was further evidence obtained from the metadata of these files which disclosed that you had been accessing 12 of the files between 1 and 4 February 2023, which was also confirmed by your admissions. The forensic analysis also revealed that you had accessed a further 23 child abuse material files on 13 January 2023 which were found in the temporary cache directory of the laptop (part of Charge 1 - access CAM).
13. The Court's view was that the offending was a serious example of accessing CAM and Dr Whitehouse's moral culpability is high. The charge of possession concerned a single date and the possession of only 22 images or videos and was regarded as a low-level example of this offence.
14. In sentencing Dr Whitehouse, the Court had regard to evidence of his good character, his open and candid engagement with clinicians, his low risk of re-offending and that he pleaded guilty and was remorseful.

1. The notice of allegations has largely been agreed to by Dr Whitehouse. In circumstances where the parties provide an agreed statement, the principles applied by VCAT are well established, and succinctly summarised in Medical Board of Australia v Ong[3]

The relevant principles for a Tribunal to apply in circumstances when there is an agreed statement of facts and findings, as in the present case, are that the Tribunal must be satisfied itself that the findings are appropriate and no agreement between the regulator and the practitioner can supplant that duty. However, any agreement between the parties is a highly relevant matter. Whether a person is legally represented may be an important consideration.

1. In this case, Dr Whitehouse was represented by competent solicitors in the preparation of the Agreed Statement.
2. We have considered the evidence in the Tribunal Book and the Board's submissions.
3. Even though the parties have agreed that events have occurred, we have still considered the evidence to determine the facts.
4. The standard of proof we have applied is that we must reach a comfortable degree of satisfaction in accordance with the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw[4] that the facts are established.
5. We find the allegation proved. We note particular (c) - that Dr Whitehouse notified the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) that he had been charged by the Australian Federal Police with eight offences - is not precisely correct (the notification refers to one charge of possession of CAM only), but nothing turns on this.

CHARACTERISATION OF THE PROVED CONDUCT OF DR WHITEHOUSE

1. Section 5 of the National Law includes the following relevant definition of 'professional misconduct'.

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

...

(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.

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, and includes: ...

(c) the conviction of the practitioner for an offence under another Act, the nature of which may affect the practitioner's suitability to continue to practise the profession

1. In relation to paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct, we note the term 'fit and proper', while not defined in the National Law, relevantly allows for a wide range of matters to be considered. A decision-maker needs to make a value judgement and in doing so must assess the seriousness or otherwise of the particular conduct.[5]
2. We accept the Board's submission, in context of the parties' agreement, that we find the conduct of Dr Whitehouse to be professional misconduct.
3. The conduct of Dr Whitehouse is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of any medical practitioner. It is conduct that is extremely harmful to the children depicted in the images. It is conduct that perpetuates and commercialises this harm through the purchase of CAM. In the context of general practice, where the practitioner treats children, no right-minded colleague, parent, or community member would consider it acceptable that the doctor treating a child also accesses and possesses CAM.
4. It is also conduct in connection with the practice of his profession that is entirely inconsistent with Dr Whitehouse being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a medical practitioner. The conduct is criminal conduct, and the offending was a serious example of accessing CAM, where Dr Whitehouse's moral culpability was high. The conduct was deliberate and ongoing for a number of years. It is inconceivable that a medical practitioner who accessed CAM on multiple occasions and was convicted of offences related to the access to and possession of CAM, would be a suitable person to continue to practice as a medical practitioner.
5. We therefore find Dr Whitehouse engaged in professional misconduct as defined in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition in section 5 of the National Law.

1. Section 196(2) of the National Law is to the effect that where VCAT decides under section 196(1)(b) that a practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, VCAT may decide on actions, relevantly including:

(a) caution or reprimand the practitioner;

...

(d) suspend the practitioner's registration for a specified period;

(e) cancel the practitioner's registration.

1. Section 196(4) of the National Law relevantly provides:

(4) If the tribunal decides to cancel a person's registration under this Law or the person does not hold registration under this Law, the tribunal may also decide to do one or more of the following -

(a) disqualify the person from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period; ...

(b) prohibit the person, either permanently or for a stated period, from doing either or both of the following -

(i) providing any health service or a specified health service;

(ii) using any title or a specified title;

1. The recent decision of VCAT in Osteopathy Board of Australia v Reid[6] provides a good summary of the relevant matters to be considered when making determinations under the National Law. As noted in that decision:
   1. VCAT's primary role is to protect the public rather than to punish health practitioners who engage in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct. Determinations also assist to maintain proper ethical and professional standards to protect the public and the profession in the sense of maintaining stature and integrity in the eyes of the public. VCAT is required, in appropriate cases, to make determinations which will deter the individual health practitioner from engaging in the same or like conduct again and/or which serve as a warning to other health practitioners that engaging in the conduct will bring serious consequences - the latter is known as general deterrence.
   2. In some cases, specific deterrence is of lesser importance because a practitioner has been rehabilitated, is retired or has otherwise agreed not to practice again. Despite that, general deterrence may call for the imposition of a determination which acts as a warning to other members of the profession that like conduct may lead to significant consequences.
   3. It is understood that although determinations are not intended to be punitive, they can have that effect on individual practitioners.
   4. Personal matters such as shame, personal ordeal, and financial difficulty are of little relevance except as far as they contribute to the specific deterrence of the practitioner.
   5. The 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 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.
   6. Any form of official censure is of consequence. A reprimand should not be considered a 'slap over the wrist': it puts the public and the relevant profession on notice that the practitioner has failed to meet the standards of the profession and is a means by which VCAT admonishes the practitioner for their proven conduct.
   7. An agreement between the parties, particularly as to determinations under the National Law, is a highly relevant matter for VCAT's consideration. It remains, however, VCAT's duty to determine these matters and no agreement between a regulator and the professional person under review can supplant that duty. Nevertheless, departure from an agreed position ought not take place without a clear reason.

1. The Agreed Statement proposes that Dr Whitehouse be reprimanded, disqualified from applying for registration as a medical practitioner for six years, and prohibited from providing health services.
2. VCAT has been limited in its assessment of some of the factors relevant to our determination as a result of Dr Whitehouse not appearing at the hearing. In particular, we were limited in understanding the degree of insight and extent of any rehabilitation of Dr Whitehouse. While we have the Reasons for Sentence, we have none of the psychological or other reports or information that sit behind the Court's conclusion that Dr Whitehouse is open and candid when engaging with clinicians, or that his risk of reoffending is low and he is remorseful.
3. Our assessment is confined to the documentary information before VCAT, assisted by the submissions of Ms Tonkin on behalf of the Board.

1. Dr Whitehouse is reprimanded.
2. The reprimand reflects VCAT's disapproval in the strongest possible terms of the conduct of Dr Whitehouse.
3. The access to some 300 CAM images and 146 CAM videos is a serious example of this type of offending. The content, as briefly described above (paragraph 16), is highly disturbing. The possession of 22 CAM files, while less serious, is itself criminal conduct resulting in a conviction and prison sentence. The proved conduct is disgraceful.

1. As the parties propose, Dr Whitehouse is disqualified from applying for registration as a medical practitioner for a period of six years.
2. We have had close regard to the Agreed Statement and acknowledge it reflects a considered and carefully negotiated outcome reached by the regulator and practitioner.
3. Dr Whitehouse has retired from practice and surrendered his practising certificate in February 2023. This is relevant in considering any ongoing risk presented by the practitioner.
4. We have considered cases referred to by the Board.[7] In doing so, we have not sought to determine the appropriate disqualification period by reference to those previous cases, but agree they can be useful in providing some guidance. At a high level, the cases indicate that health practitioners who are found guilty of accessing and/or possessing CAM can expect very lengthy periods of exclusion from practice.
5. Our view, given the very grave nature of the misconduct, is that a lengthy period of disqualification is appropriate as a matter of both specific and general deterrence:
   1. As regards specific deterrence, the Agreed Statement reflects an acknowledgement by Dr Whitehouse of the misconduct. His surrender of his practising certificate lessens the importance of this factor and removes any current risk to the community. However, the failure of Dr Whitehouse to provide evidence means we have no way to assess his remorse for the misconduct, and the current progress of his rehabilitation. We also do not know whether Dr Whitehouse has plans, at any time in the future, to come out of retirement.
   2. As regards general deterrence, the matters the subject of this proceeding go to the trust the community has in medical practitioners, and in particular general practitioners. General practitioners care for children; it is unacceptable that such practitioner would also access and possess CAM. Doctors also have a responsibility to report suspected abuse and neglect of children; to be accessing CAM when charged with such a responsibility is a serious breach of trust. Any practitioner who breaches this trust warrants significant professional consequences.
6. A substantial period of disqualification is necessary to maintain public confidence in the standards of the medical profession. The proved misconduct is significant and warrants a strong regulatory response.
7. For these reasons, Dr Whitehouse is disqualified from applying for registration as a medical practitioner for a period of six years.
8. We further note that should Dr Whitehouse apply for re-registration as a medical practitioner, an assessment would be made by the Board of Dr Whitehouse's suitability to hold registration.[8]

1. As the parties propose, Dr Whitehouse is prohibited from providing health services, whether as an employee, contractor, manager, or volunteer, and whether remunerated or not, unless he is registered as a health practitioner. This includes, but is not limited to, a prohibition on providing a health service and/or using any title, that utilises or refers to the respondent's skills and knowledge gained as a medical practitioner.
2. Our view is that this order is appropriate. Given the significant and serious criminal conduct, which breaches the trust the community would have in any health practitioner, there is a significant and ongoing risk if Dr Whitehouse were to provide other health services to children and any other persons.
3. The period of the prohibition should be until such time that he is returned to the register as a registered health practitioner. Such a requirement best serves the main guiding principle of the national registration and accreditation scheme that the protection of the public is paramount (section 3A(1)(a) of the National Law). It also ensures that health services can only be provided after a further assessment by the Board of Dr Whitehouse's suitability to hold registration.

The following allegation in respect of Dr Richard Whitehouse are referred to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal by the Medical Board of Australia (Board) pursuant to s 193(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law).1

ALLEGATION - OFFENCE AGAINST OTHER LAW - CHILD OFFENCE

1. That Dr Whitehouse engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs

(a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law, in that he accessed and possessed child abuse material, and a Court convicted Dr Whitehouse of two offences that established this conduct under ss 474.22A(1) and 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) respectively.

1. Dr Whitehouse first registered as a medical practitioner in specialist general practice on 10 December 1984 (registration number MED0001122526). At all times before he surrendered his registration with effect from 16 February 2023, he was a registered medical practitioner.

1. On 9 February 2023, Victoria Police the Australian Federal Police charged Dr Whitehouse with eight offences under the Criminal Code, being:

1. Seven counts of 'access child abuse material using a carriage service' under s 474.22(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code; and

1. One count of 'possession of child abuse material obtained using a carriage service' under s 474.22A(1) of the Criminal Code.

Relevantly, each of the above offences attracts a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

1. On 9 February 2023, Dr Whitehouse notified the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) that he had been charged by Victoria Police the Australian Federal Police with the charges referred to in particular 1(b), and sought to surrender his registration. The surrender took effect from 16 February 2023.

1. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution proceeded with only two of the charges against Dr Whitehouse in the County Court of Victoria, being one count of each offence under ss 474.22A(1) (Charge 1) and 474.22(1) (Charge 2) of the Criminal Code respectively.

1. Dr Whitehouse pleaded guilty to both Charge 1 and Charge 2.

1. On 8 December 2023, the County Court of Victoria:

1. Convicted Dr Whitehouse of Charge 1, and sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment;

1. Convicted Dr Whitehouse of Charge 2, and sentenced him to 3 months' imprisonment;
2. Directed that Dr Whitehouse serve 3 months' imprisonment before being released on a recognisance order in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for two years; and

1. Noted that, on account of Charges 1 and 2 being class two offences under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic), Dr Whitehouse was to be a registrable offender for a period of 15 years.

1. The conduct of Dr Whitehouse set out in particulars 1(b)to 1(f) above is inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration, pursuant to the definition of 'professional misconduct' at paragraphs (a) and (c) in s 5 of the National Law.

1. The conduct of Dr Whitehouse is inconsistent with:2

1. The Medical Board of Australia Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia (in effect from 1 July 2010) (Code of Conduct), which provides:

1. at section 2.1, that medical practitioners 'must be honest, ethical and trustworthy' and 'have a responsibility to protect and promote the health of individuals and the community'.

1. at section 2.2, medical practitioners to uphold the community's trust, and consider the effect of their actions outside work and how they reflect on the reputation of the profession.

[1] The final amended notice of allegations was filed in December 2025 and is largely identical to the notice of allegations sent to VCAT with the referral. The amendments are not consequential.

[2] The Judge noted later in the summary that the actual amount spent on CAM was $143.

[3] [2024] VCAT 242 at paragraph 31, citations omitted.

[4] 1938 HCA 34.

[5] See Psychology Board of Australia v Griersmith [2019] VCAT 52 at paragraph 67.

[6] [2024] VCAT 731.

[7] Health Ombudsman v Yap [2024] QCAT 425; Medical Board of Australia v McGavigan [2023] SACAT 65; Medical Board of Australia v Yu [2020] SACAT 123; Medical Board of Australia v Yu (No. 2) [2021] SACAT 45; Paramedicine Board of Australia v TNS [2024] VCAT 1133.