1. In June 2020, Peter Whyte[1] was working as a medical practitioner in a hospital in Western Australia (WA). He 'obtained' a prescription pad from a Colleague and, when he moved to Victoria in January 2021, he brought it with him.
2. In the period March to May 2021, Whyte presented prescriptions he had written in his own name for self-administration, forging the Colleague's signature. Many were dispensed but a vigilant Pharmacist queried a prescription for Panadeine Forte. After noticing another prescription in the Colleague's name for that same substance had been recently filled at a different pharmacy, the Pharmacist checked with the Colleague.[2] The Colleague informed the Pharmacist she had not written the script but she recognised the writing as Whyte's.[3]
3. The Colleague and another medical practitioner from the WA hospital made a notification to the Board, via the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) and the Pharmacist alerted Victoria Police.
4. Police searched Whyte's home and found numerous medications including some prescribed to him by a medical practitioner to whom Whyte had made misrepresentations. Some were prescribed using the Colleague's prescription pad and others were bought online or into Australia from overseas. As explained below, a number of the medications were what are known as 'Schedule 4 poisons'. Police also found an imitation firearm for which Whyte did not have an authorisation.
5. Thirty criminal charges followed and, after pleading guilty, on 24 January 2022, the Magistrate's Court of Victoria found Whyte guilty. The Court did not impose any convictions but fined him a total of $2,500.
6. The notification to Aphra led to the Medical Board of Australia referring Whyte to the Tribunal for disciplinary orders under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law).
7. By the time of the hearing before us in February 2025, the parties had agreed that Whyte's conduct constituted professional misconduct[4] and that he ought to be reprimanded.
8. In addition, in circumstances were Whyte was no longer registered, they agreed he ought to be disqualified from re-applying for registration for 18 months from the date of our orders. As at the time of the hearing, Whyte had not held practising registration since January 2023 and was not registered at all after 30 September 2023. We note that, at the hearing, Whyte informed us that he had not worked in any capacity at all (as a medical practitioner or otherwise) since February 2022. As a consequence of the parties' agreed position, Whyte would be out of medical practise for a total of three years and seven months (excluding the period of non-practising registration).
9. We ultimately decided to make those determinations having regard to the Board's submissions and the material before us. Had Whyte not stated he did not ever intend to return to practise, we might have imposed a longer period of disqualification in circumstances where aspects of his conduct remained unexplained and unacceptable and where he had expressed limited remorse and insight into the conduct. We describe the concerns we held in our discussion of determinations ( from [117] below).

1. The following comes from the parties' Statement of Agreed Facts, Determinations and Outcomes (Agreed Statement) and the materials in their joint Tribunal Book (TB).

1. On 30 March 2009, Whyte commenced medical practice as an intern in Sydney.
2. From early 2017 to late 2020, Whyte practised at St John of God Hospital (SJOGH) in Subiaco, WA, in the position of resident medical officer.
3. On 1 February 2021, Whyte commenced working at Mildura Base Hospital (MBH) in Mildura, Victoria, as a contracted resident medical officer. By letter dated 1 February 2022, MBH informed Whyte that in light of the criminal proceedings referred to below, his contract, which was due to end on 2 February 2022, would not be renewed.[5]
4. At all relevant times in 2021, Whyte held registration as a medical practitioner under the National Law. At all material times, as a registered doctor in his role at SJOGH and MBH, Whyte was required to adhere to:

(a) The Board's 'Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia' (Code of Conduct); and

(b) The Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Regulations 2017 (Vic), in force from 23 May 2017, and as subsequently amended (DPCS Regulations).

The prescription pad and subsequent dishonest self-prescribing

1. On an unknown date in or around June 2020, Whyte dishonestly obtained the Colleague's prescription pad.
2. During the month of January 2021, Whyte entered Victoria from WA bringing with him the Colleague's prescription pad.
3. On five occasions between January and May 2021, Whyte dishonestly authored five prescriptions for himself using the Colleague's prescription pad and personally attended pharmacies with those prescriptions to obtain the medications (including Schedule 4 Poisons and one which is a drug of dependence) by deception and false representation.
4. The last of those prescriptions was presented on 13 May 2021. The Pharmacist checked SafeScript and noticed the prescription had been filled at another pharmacy. The Pharmacist did not dispense the prescription to Whyte.
5. On 14 May 2021, the Pharmacist contacted the Colleague and faxed her a copy of the script. The Colleague then advised the Pharmacist that she had not written the prescription, that it was Whyte's handwriting and her prescription pad had been taken by Whyte without her permission.[6]

1. On 14 May 2021, the Pharmacist proceeded to report the incident to Victoria Police.
2. On 14 May 2021, the Colleague and another medical practitioner from SJOGH made notifications to Ahpra.

1. During the period January 2021 to August 2021, Whyte attended consultations with his treating general practitioner (the GP) at which he:

(a) falsely represented himself as an IT specialist and not a medical practitioner; and

(b) obtained prescriptions for Schedule 4 poisons, including APX Paracetamol and Codeine which is a drug of dependence.

1. The last prescription issued by the GP was dated 18 March 2021 with five repeats.

1. On 16 August 2021, Victoria Police arrested Whyte, who gave his consent to Victoria Police to search his Mildura residence
2. As a result of that search, Whyte was found to be in possession of fourteen Schedule 4 poisons without authorisation.
3. Of those, three were obtained by Whyte using the Colleague's prescription pad.
4. Four of the poisons were obtained by Whyte falsely representing himself to the GP as an IT specialist.
5. The Schedule 4 poisons located by police included five which were obtained without a prescription using online platforms.
6. One of the Schedule 4 poisons was purchased at a pharmacy in Thailand without a prescription and brought by Whyte into Australia.
7. Another of the Schedule 4 poisons was prescribed by an unknown prescriber on an unknown date.
8. Whyte admitted that he:

(a) Obtained the Schedule 4 poisons, for the purposes of self-administration, for, among other things, pain relief; and

(b) Self-administered the relevant drugs of dependence.

1. While conducting the search police found an imitation firearm, being a red and black inert imitation firearm. Whyte held no exemption for that imitation weapon.

1. Whyte was charged with, and on 24 January 2022, pleaded guilty to, the following 30 charges:[7]

(a) From 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2021, dishonestly undertaking to bring stolen goods into Victoria (under section (1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Crimes Act);

(b) Five charges of uttering a forged a prescription for a Schedule 4 poison (under section 36A of the Crimes Act);

(c) Five charges of obtaining a Schedule 4 poison by false representation (under section 36B(a) of the Crimes Act);

(d) Four charges of obtaining property by deception (under section 81(1) of the Crimes Act);

(e) One charge of causing a pharmacist to dispense a prescription for a Schedule 4 poison (under section 36B(d) of the Crimes Act);

(f) Fourteen charges of being in possession of a drug of dependence (under section 73 of the Crimes Act); and

(g) Being in possession of an imitation firearm without an exemption or approval (under section 5AB(1) of the Controlled Weapons Act 1990 (Vic)).

1. At the hearing, we were informed by the Board's counsel that the drugs which led to the 14 charges mentioned in (f) above were not all drugs of dependence. In fact, only one was, with the other 13 being poisons for the purposes of the DPCS Regulations. That irregularity in the criminal proceeding is not a matter for us.
2. We describe the substances police located at Whyte's home below (from [62]).

1. On 24 January 2022, the Magistrate's Court of Victoria imposed the following:[8]

(a) A fine of $400 without a conviction in relation to the fourteen charges of possessing a drug of dependence;

(b) A fine of $100 without a conviction in relation to the charge of possessing an imitation firearm; and

(c) An aggregate fine of $2,000 with conviction recorded for the remaining charges.

1. On 16 June 2021, in light of the May 2021 notifications to Ahpra, the Board advised Whyte it proposed to take immediate action (under section 156 of the National Law) by suspending his registration.
2. After considering submissions made on Whyte's behalf by his solicitors, on 2 July 2021, an Immediate Action Committee (IAC) convened by the Board decided to take immediate action in the form of Conditions. Those included that Whyte:[9]
   • Only take substances prescribed, approved or administered by a nominated treating practitioner;
   • Undertake random urine screening and hair analysis for drug screening at Group 1 frequency in accordance with Ahpra's protocol;
   • Only practise between 6am and 8pm when supervised by another registered health practitioner; and
   • Attend treatment with a general practitioner at the frequency determined by that practitioner.
3. On 28 March 2022, Whyte contacted Aphra requesting that the Conditions be removed. He explained that he had not worked since February 2022 and that he had been looking for work 'all over the country' but the time restriction on his practice meant he was having trouble finding work. On 25 May 2022, Ahpra advised Whyte that the Board had decided not to remove the Conditions.[10]
4. On 10 November 2022, Dr Whyte emailed the Board notifying it he 'will be withdrawing [his] request for APHRA registration this week'. The email related to the annual renewal of registration (which fell due on 30 September 2022). As we understood it from the explanation Whyte provided at the hearing, he had paid the full fee for his practising registration but, because he had a serious episode of illness and he was experiencing significant fatigue, he decided he would not have the required focus. He thought if he had non-practising registration for a period of time, he could apply for practising registration once his health improved.
5. Whyte's application for non-practising registration was granted and took effect on 20 January 2023. It expired on 30 September 2023.
6. During the 'grace' period allowed for registration renewals,[11] on 4 October 2023, Whyte emailed the Board's legal representatives stating 'I have already withdrawn my application for re-registration. I will never hold, or apply for, registration as a medical professional again'.
7. As at the time of the hearing before us, Whyte had not been registered (practising or non-practising) since 30 September 2023.

1. On 18 May 2023, the Board decided to refer Whyte to the Tribunal for a disciplinary hearing under the National Law. It did so three months later in August 2023.

1. The Allegation was that Whyte had engaged in professional misconduct as defined in section 5 of the National Law, by:

(c) bringing a stolen prescription pad into Victoria;

(d) dishonestly forging prescriptions in his own name using a false signature;

(e) obtaining prescription medications by presenting forged prescriptions at pharmacies in Mildura, knowingly misrepresenting himself as to his profession to obtain prescriptions from a medical practitioner, and obtaining prescription medications without a prescription through other means without authorisation; and

(f) possessing an imitation firearm without an exemption.

1. The particulars of the Allegation referred to the matters summarised above, including the criminal charges and outcomes. It is not necessary to set out all of the particulars containing those matters.
2. The particulars of the Allegation included reference to the following relevant parts of the Code of Conduct:
   • 2.1 (Professional values and qualities of doctors): Good communication underpins every aspect of good medical practice;
   • 2.1 (Professional values and qualities of doctors): Good medical practice requires doctors to reflect regularly on their practice and its effectiveness, consider what is happening in their relationships with patients and colleagues, and look after their own health and wellbeing;
   • 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;
   • 9.2.2 (Continuing professional development): Ensuring that your practice meets the standards reasonably expected by the public and your peers;
   • 10.1 (Professional behaviour): 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;
   • 11.2.1 (Your health): Having a general practitioner;
   • 11.2.3 (Your health): Seeking help if you are suffering stress, burnout, anxiety or depression;
   • 11.2.2 (Your health): Seeking independent, objective advice when you need medical care, and being aware of the risks of self-diagnosis and self-treatment;
   • 11.2.5 (Your health): Not self-prescribing;
   • 11.2.8 (Your health): If you know or suspect that you have a health condition or impairment that could adversely affect your judgment, performance or your patient's health:
     • not relying on your assessment of the risk you pose to patients; and
     • consulting your doctor about whether, and in what ways you need to modify your practice, and following the doctor's advice.
3. The particulars also set out the following provisions relevant to the DPCS Regulations:
   • A 'drug of dependence' means a substance defined in section 4 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) (DPCS Act), including those specified in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 11 to that Act;
   • A 'Schedule 4 poison' means a substance in Schedule 4 of the Poisons Standard, being the current Poisons Standard within the meaning of section 52D of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth). Schedule 4 poisons are medicines for which prescriptions are required;
   • The Poisons Standard in effect at all relevant times was the Poisons Standard February 2021;
   • Regulation 7(1): being that a person authorised by the regulation is authorised to possess a Schedule 4 poison to the extent and for the purpose described;
   • Regulation 17(a) and (c): being that a registered medical practitioner must not issue a prescription for a Schedule 4 poison unless that prescription is for the medical treatment of a person other than that practitioner and they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure a therapeutic need exists for that poison;
   • Regulation 24(6): being that a person who writes a prescription for a Schedule 4 poison must not include any information that the person knows is false or misleading;
   • Regulation 78(a) and (c): being that a registered medical practitioner must not issue a prescription for a Schedule 4 poison unless that prescription is for the medical treatment of a person other than that practitioner and they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure a therapeutic need exists for that poison;
   • Regulation 105: being that a Schedule 4 poison must not be prescribed for the purposes of self-administration; and
   • Regulation 132: being that a person who has been treated with a drug of dependence in the previous eight weeks must not, without disclosing that fact, procure the same or similar drug of dependence from an authorised person.

1. We were required to make our findings of fact on the balance of probabilities, comfortably satisfied they are open on the evidence, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences of findings such as these.[12]

1. As is apparent from the terms of the Allegation, the conduct before us is that which led to the criminal charges and not the fact of the charges being laid and guilty findings being made.
2. Having said that, (leaving aside the matter noted at [34] regarding the correct classification of 13 of the charges) the proof of the facts alleged relies on Whyte's guilty pleas and those findings of fact.
3. While Whyte had signed the Agreed Statement ahead of the hearing, given he was self-represented, we asked if he maintained his admissions as to the facts contained in that Statement. He confirmed that was correct.
4. Having regard to the Agreed Statement, Whyte's admissions and the material in the TB we were comfortably satisfied that the pertinent facts as alleged were proven. As a result, we found Whyte:

(a) Brought a stolen prescription pad into Victoria;

(b) Dishonestly forged prescriptions in his own name using a false signature;

(c) Obtained prescription medications by presenting forged prescriptions at pharmacies in Mildura;

(d) Knowingly misrepresented himself as to his profession to obtain prescriptions from the GP;

(e) Obtained prescription medications without a prescription through other means without authorisation - by obtaining them from overseas via a purchase in Thailand and purchases online; and

(f) Possessed an imitation firearm without an exemption.

1. Relevant in this proceeding, section 5 of the National Law provides that professional misconduct, of a registered health practitioner, includes:

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

. . .

(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.

1. The definition is inclusive. A practitioner may engage in professional misconduct which does not fit neatly into one or other of those categories. Further, the definition does not preclude more than one sub-paragraph applying to particular misconduct.
2. The definition of 'unprofessional conduct', relevant to this case, is:

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

1. Characterising proven conduct is an objective assessment which looks towards the conduct in light of the applicable standards and relevant definitions, rather than matters arising later in time, such as remorse, insight and rehabilitation.
2. In relation to a finding under paragraphs (a) of the definition, the Tribunal must assess the degree of seriousness of the practitioner's conduct having regard to the extent to which the conduct departs from the proper standards of professional conduct of a registered medical practitioner. The gravity of professional misconduct is not measured by reference to the worst cases, but by the extent to which it departs from the proper standards.
3. In relation to a finding under paragraph (c) of the definition, the term 'fit and proper person' allows for a wide range of matters to be considered. As stated by the Tribunal in Psychology Board of Australia v Griersmith:[13]

It includes not only whether a person has the necessary honesty, knowledge and ability but also whether the person possesses sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to permit them to be accredited to the public as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work the relevant registration or licence entails. The decision maker needs to make a value judgment and, in so doing, must make an assessment of the seriousness or otherwise of the particular conduct for evaluation.

1. The Agreed Statement said that the parties agreed Whyte's conduct amounted to professional misconduct under paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition. That agreement had regard to the parts of the Code of Conduct set out above and the content of the DPCS Regulations (set out above at [47] and [48] respectively).
2. Whyte confirmed he was aware of the relevant parts of the definition of professional misconduct and that the Agreed Statement reflected his position.

1. To contextualise the nature of the conduct, we have identified below the substances which were found in Whyte's home by police, indicating whether they were obtained by using the Colleague's prescription pad, from the GP (under the false representation as to his profession) or otherwise:[14]
   • Tamoxifen: an oral medication mainly prescribed to treat and prevent hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in women which works by selectively blocking the effects of estrogen - there appear to be (unproven) suggestions online that it can be used to modify fatigue associated with autoimmune conditions - obtained using the Colleague's prescription pad;
   • Hydrocortisone (trade name Mylan): is an oral corticosteroid prescribed to suppress the body's inflammatory response to reduce pain, itching and swelling (or as an essential replacement therapy in certain diagnosed medical conditions) - obtained using the Colleague's prescription pad;
   • Ondansetron SZ ODT: an oral anti-nausea and/or anti-vomiting treatment - obtained from the GP;
   • Rosuvastatin Apotex: an oral brand of an hydroxy methylglutaryl co-enzyme A reductase inhibitor medication prescribed to lower so-called 'bad' cholesterol (low-density lipoproteins) and raise so-called 'good' cholesterol (high-density lipoproteins) - obtained from the GP;
   • Piracetam: a synthetic oral medication prescribed to stimulate brain function in certain diagnosed degenerative cerebral conditions which is not approved for used in Australia - obtained online;
   • Alphaclav Duo: a trade name for an oral antibiotic containing the active ingredients amoxicillin and clavulanic acid - unknown origin;
   • Armodafini: a cerebral stimulant treatment for excessive sleepiness caused by narcolepsy - obtained online;
   • Anavar: the trade name of an anabolic steroid prescribed to help promote weight gain and muscle mass - obtained online;
   • Naltrexone: a partial opiate receptor antagonist usually prescribed to manage alcohol over-use disorder or as a maintenance treatment in opioid use disorder by reducing cravings and feelings of euphoria - obtained using the Colleague's prescription pad;
   • Apo-Telmisartan HCTZ: an oral medication prescribed to treat hypertension - obtained from the GP;
   • APX Paracetamol and Codeine: a common combined oral analgesic medication prescribed to relieve severe pain and fever - obtained from the GP;
   • Frag 176-191: a human growth hormone which is not approved for use in Australia - obtained online;
   • Modafinil: a cerebral stimulant treatment for excessive sleepiness caused by narcolepsy - obtained online; and
   • Domper-M: a brand name of domperidone, an anti-nausea and anti-vomiting treatment - purchased in Thailand without a prescription while suffering an acute gastrointestinal condition.

1. We had no difficulty in finding that the totality of Whyte's conduct was professional misconduct under paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition.
2. Paragraph (a) of the definition of professional misconduct also applied to each of the matters we discuss below in the context of paragraph (c) of the definition as the conduct represented a breach of the Code of Conduct and was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner with Whyte's experience.
3. Paragraph (a) of the definition also applies to Whyte's failure to manage his own health by seeking objective advice and taking particular care if he knew or suspected he had a health condition or impairment that could adversely affect judgment, performance or patient health (as described in clause 11.2 of the Code of Conduct).
4. We considered the following aspects of Whyte's conduct to be particularly disgraceful and so comfortably within paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct.
5. Having stolen the Colleague's prescription pad in WA in around June 2020, Whyte brought it into Victoria about seven months later and commenced authoring and forging signatures on prescriptions for self-administration in March 2021. By presenting those prescriptions at various pharmacies, Whyte represented they were written by the Colleague and, no doubt, the various pharmacists were under the impression they were dispensing appropriately, with the exception of the Pharmacist who checked SafeScript.
6. Whyte misled his longer term treater (the GP) about his profession: he claimed he was an IT specialist instead of being a medical practitioner. When making an oral statement at the hearing (directed towards our determinations), Whyte said he did so because he did not believe the GP would prescribe pain medication to him if he was aware of his profession. Whether that was the complete explanation or not, the fact Whyte misled his own treater was dishonest and placed the GP in a position where he did not know relevant facts which could have influenced his treatment of Whyte.
7. It is not appropriate for medical practitioners to self-diagnose, self-treat and self-prescribe given they lack objectivity about their own medical conditions. It is particularly serious for a medical practitioner to obtain prescription medication from overseas (online or when visiting) as it occurs outside the DPCS Act and Regulations and the attendant checks and balances they apply to ensure prescription medications are used safely and do not find their way into the community to be used without medical supervision.
8. Whyte's use of the self-prescribed medications, including online, presented a risk to his own health. While we understood that Whyte never returned to practice after February 2022, at least until police searched his property in August 2021, he was using the medications listed above, including those he had obtained online. That had the potential to adversely affect him (particularly the numerous central nervous stimulants) and so place his patients at risk.
9. The fact Whyte had an imitation firearm in his possession without the required authorisation was contrary to the Controlled Weapons Act 1990 (Vic) and so in breach of the law and the Code of Conduct.

1. Section 196(2) of the National Law sets out the determinations the Tribunal may make where professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct has been proven. They include cancellation of registration, suspension of registration and the imposition of conditions.
2. The Tribunal'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 of the profession in the eyes of the public. The Tribunal is also required to, in appropriate cases, 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.[15]
3. Where parties have reached a proposed agreement of the kind presented in this case, it remains the Tribunal's duty to determine the level of conduct alleged and the determinations to be imposed as no agreement between a regulator and the professional person under review can supplant that duty. However, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to give weight to and take into account the agreement between the parties as a highly relevant and important matter. That is particularly so if it is clear from the face of the agreement that it does not represent an arbitrary outcome but reflects a carefully and extensively negotiated outcome that has proper regard to all relevant facts and circumstances.[16]

1. Via the Agreed Statement, the parties jointly proposed that the Tribunal make the following orders:
   • Reprimand Whyte (under section 196(2)(a) of the National Law); and
   • Disqualify Whyte from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of 18 months from the date of the Tribunal's final orders (under section 196(4)(a) of the National Law).

1. The Board's written submissions dated 20 December 2024 submitted the above proposed determinations were, in summary, appropriate for the following reasons.
2. Seriousness of the conduct: Whyte's conduct should be regarded as serious, as it involved significant and numerous breaches of the Code of Conduct. It was said to bring discredit to the profession.
3. The disqualification order was said to be needed to properly denounce the conduct and reassure the public that such conduct will not be tolerated.
4. Achieving deterrence: A disqualification period was said to be necessary to convey the Tribunal's 'emphatic disapproval' of Whyte's conduct, and so achieve the aim of general deterrence. It was submitted that a reprimand alone would not send a sufficient message.
5. The Board said it accepted that there were 'limited specific deterrence concerns' in circumstances where Whyte had indicated he did not intend to seek registration in the future. That was said to be reflected in the agreed length of the proposed disqualification period.
6. Whyte's cooperation with the investigation and personal circumstances: The Board acknowledged that Whyte admitted the conduct at an early stage of the Board's investigation and in the police investigation. Those matters were said to be reflected in the proposed agreed determinations.
7. The Board also acknowledged the evidence regarding Whyte's physical ailments at the time he committed the conduct the subject of the Allegation, although it submitted that those could not override the Tribunal's fundamental obligation to protect the public interest.
8. Time out of practice: The Board acknowledged that Whyte had been out of practice for a significant period of time, having withdrawn his request for registration on 10 November 2022. It said that, while time out of practice may be relevant to considerations of specific deterrence, the Board submitted that general deterrence required 'a significant sanction be enforced'.
9. Consistency with previous decisions: The Board noted that comparisons with previous decisions must be approached with caution given the protective rather than punitive nature of the orders. It submitted that the Tribunal 'may have regard to a range or pattern that can be gleaned from comparable decisions'.
10. The Board provided a table of comparable decisions involving health practitioners who have stolen prescription pads, forged prescriptions, or misrepresented themselves so as to obtain unauthorised prescription medications. The decisions were said to demonstrate that moderate to lengthy suspension periods were regularly imposed in relation to such conduct. The Board submitted that Whyte's conduct was most analogous to that in the following two cases and referred us to several others.[17]
11. Nursing and Midwifery Board v Kindl:[18] the practitioner stole blank prescription pages from the prescription pad of a medical practitioner who shared a consulting suite with her husband. She forged prescriptions for oxycodone and presented them at a range of pharmacies over a five month period. The practitioner's activities were discovered by an attentive pharmacist who wished to confirm the authenticity of the prescription and contacted the doctor whose name was shown as the prescriber. The practitioner was charged with theft, forging a prescription for a drug of dependence and possessing a drug of dependence. The practitioner entered into a Diversion Plan after making full admissions to police.
12. The allegations concerned: the criminal charges; the practitioner having made false or misleading declarations when applying for registration in three registration years; and improperly obtaining registration in those years by providing false or misleading information in relation to applicable recency of practice requirements.
13. The Tribunal ordered the practitioner be reprimanded, that her registration be cancelled, and that she be disqualified from applying for registration for two years.
14. Nursing and Midwifery Board v Sanger:[19] the practitioner was a registered nurse who misappropriated two blank prescription pads, prepared false documents prescribing drugs to himself on approximately sixteen occasions (including approximately 28 prescription medications) and presented false documents to various pharmacies to obtain medication for self-administration. The practitioner was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, theft, obtaining property by deception, and using a false document to prejudice. The practitioner also provided false and/or misleading information during the course of his submissions to an IAC and during a health assessment process. Later, the practitioner admitted the conduct amounted to professional misconduct.
15. The Tribunal ordered that the practitioner be reprimanded, that his registration be cancelled and that he be disqualified from being eligible for registration for one year.
16. Returning to Whyte, the Board submitted that a reprimand and an 18 month disqualification period was necessary and appropriate to meet public protection objectives and maintain professional standards, noting the deception involved in his conduct, the severity of the criminal charges to which he plead guilty, the volume of Schedule 4 poisons found in his possession (without authorisation) and the lack of materials before the Tribunal which would allow any assessment of Whyte's level of insight.
17. The Board noted that, if Whyte was re-registered, he would have access to prescription pads and the power to prescribe medication, unlike the practitioners in the cases it referred us to as none of them were medical practitioners.

1. The following summary comes from the submissions Whyte's solicitors made to the IAC in June 2021.[20] As stated earlier, rather than suspending Whyte at that point in time, the Conditions were imposed on his registration. We noted the following matters relevant to Whyte's health and other circumstances:
   • Since 2007, Whyte had had a number of medical issues. The first significant event from a pain perspective was a crush fracture of the thoracic spine in 2009. Whyte experienced increasing pain in his back over the years as his spine has become more degraded;
   • Whyte consulted a pain specialist in Perth in November 2019, who performed an MRI. It confirmed the degradation and a bone scan showed the osteoporosis had only mildly improved. The pain specialist recommended that Whyte use an opioid medication, Temgesic (buprenorphine) which, until mid-June 2021, Whyte had taken every day to control the pain. Temgesic was prescribed for Whyte by his then general practitioner in WA;
   • Whyte was subsequently prescribed Temgesic by a Ballarat based general practitioner, Ballarat being Whyte's home with family when he was not working in Mildura. He was said to have ceased Temgesic in mid-June and thereafter relied on Panadeine Forte, paracetamol and ibuprofen for pain relief;
   • On 23 March 2021, when Whyte was travelling from Mildura to Ballarat and driving at 100km/h, his vehicle hit a large kangaroo. It smashed the windscreen of the vehicle, causing Whyte to run off the road, down an embankment and into a small tree;
   • Whyte was taken by ambulance to MBH where he was diagnosed with another crush fracture of the spine and four fractured ribs on the right posterior chest. He was discharged from hospital with fifteen 5mg Endone (oxycodone) tablets for pain control;
   • As Whyte is a large man, at 188cm and (in June 2021) weighing around 105kg, he required a 50% higher dose of any medication to achieve a therapeutic effect as regular doses are calculated on a body mass of 70-75kg;
   • With the injuries suffered in the motor vehicle accident, Whyte needed more pain medication than provided by the hospital on discharge. He contacted medical centres in Mildura and Ballarat to see a general practitioner. All but one clinic said that they were not taking new patients. He was prescribed Temgesic and Panadeine Forte;
   • Whyte returned to Mildura. He had in his possession the Colleague's prescription pad. 'Experiencing constant pain and without access to a general practitioner, [Whyte] wrote prescriptions for Panadeine Forte for himself using the prescription pad in his possession'; and
   • Whyte had been taking oxazepam for sleep issues since around 24 years of age. Both sides of his family had sleeping issues and used sleeping medication. Whyte obtained prescriptions for oxazepam from the GP (who was located in the Hunter Valley, NSW, where Whyte had grown up). He was said to have had a long-term treating relationship with the GP. As at June 2021, the last prescription was dated 18 March 2021 with five repeats.
2. As to the conduct in the notifications which were before the IAC, Whyte's solicitors said he acknowledged that management of his health and arrangements for obtaining medications had been unsatisfactory. As at the time he was before the IAC, Whyte was engaging with a single general practitioner in Ballarat (the Ballarat GP). The Ballarat GP was to be solely responsible for management of Whyte's health, referrals to medical specialists and other health service providers and prescription of medications.
3. The submission then said:

Possession and use of [the Colleague's] prescription pad and having medications dispensed on prescriptions from that pad for his use was wrong. [Whyte's] conduct was the result of constant pain and inability to find a general practitioner with whom to consult for prescriptions, and his need for pain relief. [Whyte] understands that this situation did not justify his actions and that his conduct was unethical and not in accord with the expectations of the Board, his colleagues and the community of appropriate conduct of a medical practitioner.

He exercised poor judgement in the management of his health.

1. Whyte's solicitors provided the IAC with various records (which were also contained in the TB). We understood that, for the purposes of the hearing before us, the Board took no issue with their contents and accepted the above submissions as to the causes and treatment of Whyte's health conditions.
2. At the hearing we invited Whyte to either give evidence or make a statement to us in circumstances where there was no response to the Allegation in his own words or one which contained his reflections on his conduct, current circumstances and/or plans for the future.
3. Whyte elected to answer questions from the Tribunal.
4. First, Whyte confirmed some of his medical history as set out above. He said he took the Colleague's prescription pad and used it because, in around March to May 2021, he was having trouble seeing a general practitioner due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He also stated that he was 'desperate' to 'find relief' from his autoimmune condition.
5. As to why he took the prescription pad in June 2020, Whyte said he did so because he knew he was going to Mildura and it was 'just in case' he had difficulties getting treatment in that country area.
6. Second, he misrepresented himself to the GP as an IT specialist because he was concerned that the prescriptions would not be provided if he disclosed his profession. He said he made the misrepresentations to ensure he had adequate medications to manage his pain.
7. We asked why he obtained the other medications despite seeing the GP and being prescribed appropriately for his pain. Whyte said he had been seeing the GP since his early 20's and before he became a medical practitioner. He did not tell the GP about his qualifications. Whyte was 'focussed on' his chronic pain and autoimmune condition. He referred to seeing other doctors too. It seemed he was concerned the GP might refuse to prescribe if he knew Whyte was working as a medical practitioner in a hospital. We did not find the explanation he gave to be entirely clear.
8. Third, we asked him to explain why he was using the various substances the police found (listed at [62] above). He used the following specific substances for the identified purposes (excluding standard treatments for hypertension, high cholesterol and nausea):
   • Tamoxifen and hydrocortisone: for his autoimmune condition (identified by him as triple positive antiphospholipid syndrome), including to treat the fatigue associated with that condition;
   • Piracetam, armodafinil and modafinil: to improve his brain function and to manage his sleepiness and the fatigue associated with his autoimmune condition;
   • Anavar: to support his gym training;
   • Naltrexone: used by way of daily micro doses to manage fatigue associated with his autoimmune condition; and
   • Frag 176-191: to build muscle bulk.
9. Whyte told us he was using the substances as part of his 'personal research' into treatments for his health conditions.
10. Fourth, we asked why he had the imitation firearm and why it was brought to Victoria. Whyte said he had a licence in WA and went to a shooting range there. He used the imitation firearm to practice at home so he could 'get better'. He said it shot a 'laser beam'. It seemed to have been amongst the belongings Whyte brought from WA to Victoria.
11. Fifth, Whyte told us he had not worked in any capacity since February 2022.
12. Sixth, Whyte told us about his current circumstances. He is now in receipt of the Disability Support Pension. He lives in Ballarat with family. He sees a counsellor around every fortnight to discuss 'issues'. He stated he had no intention of returning to practise as a medical practitioner at all.
13. At the time he applied for non-practising registration, he was admitted to hospital due to a serious flare up of his autoimmune condition involving blood clots and other symptoms. His left foot was amputated due to vascular complications and he was left with renal dysfunction. He has been 'too fatigued' to undertake work.
14. He continues to see the Ballarat GP about fortnightly for all of his health conditions. He collects all prescribed medication from a pharmacist in a Webster pack. Whyte said he uses medicinal cannabis for pain. Whyte also sees a haematologist every few weeks and sees a cardiologist from time to time (related to an irregular heartbeat).
15. In closing, Whyte stated that he admitted to everything, that he was not trying to justify his actions by saying he had trouble finding a general practitioner and that he 'knew it was wrong'.

1. During the latter part of the hearing, we stated we had assumed there was no issue with Whyte's compliance with the Conditions as there was nothing adverse about that in the materials.
2. The Board's counsel informed us that, around the time he had the 2022 surgery, Whyte missed a few drug tests but had appropriately informed the Board about that.[21]
3. We were also informed that in December 2021, Whyte tested positive for opioids and benzodiazepines and, in June 2022, again tested positive for those substances. There appeared to have been no action taken in respect of those test results: we did not know if the substances were explained by reference to legitimate prescriptions or otherwise.
4. We asked the Board about a comment in the transcript of the Magistrate's Court hearing regarding past obtaining property by deception offences, apparently committed in 1998 and 1999 and dealt with in 2020. The presiding Magistrate asked if they concerned Medicare fraud. Whyte's counsel in the criminal matter had no specific instructions but noted the offending was more than 20 years ago and resulted in good behaviour bonds.[22]
5. The Board's counsel stated that the 2020 court matters were not related to the present matters and we understood it did not consider them to be relevant.
6. The Board's further oral submissions as to why a disqualification was appropriate referred to Whyte's statement that he took the prescription pad 'just in case'. While accepting he was experiencing personally troubling symptoms, including pain, the Board submitted Whyte's conduct seemed planned and so not spur of the moment. The Board noted he wrote the prescriptions over a period of some months and not on a single day.

1. We agreed with the parties that a reprimand was to be imposed as a means to admonish Whyte for his professional misconduct.
2. In circumstances where he was not registered, we also agreed that a disqualification order was appropriate as a means to uphold the standards of the profession and to signal to other practitioners and the broader community that Whyte's conduct was unacceptable.
3. We had some reservations about whether the period of disqualification was sufficient having regard to the following matters, some of which were not raised by the Board and some of which we acknowledge were not contained in the Allegation.
4. We proceeded on the basis of the information before us about Whyte's serious health conditions, his ongoing pain arising from two very serious accidents and the later amputation of his left foot.
5. However, that information and his move to a regional area in early 2021 failed to explain why, in around June 2020, he stole the Colleague's prescription pad. Based on the information contained in Whyte's response to the IAC, having arrived in Victoria in around January 2021, he was seeing a general practitioner and was prescribed pain relief after the accident when he hit a kangaroo. He then started seeing another general practitioner and, in March 2021, was consulting with and obtaining prescriptions from the GP. It was not apparent to us that the COVID-19 pandemic or any other factor impacted on his capacity to see a general practitioner at that time.
6. Given his documented medical conditions and the two car accidents, it was not at all clear to us that he would not have been able to discuss his concerns about his autoimmune or other conditions with the GP (or any other medical practitioner).
7. As a result, we did not understand why, around nine months in advance, Whyte anticipated he would need the prescription pad 'just in case'.
8. We also could not understand why Whyte had, as he seemed to suggest, never told the GP who he had seen since he was around 20 years of age, that he had qualified and practised as a medical practitioner. While we can imagine unravelling a lie of omission many years later may have been difficult and Whyte may have been concerned about obtaining prescriptions for some substances while working at MBH, the origin of the original misrepresentation was puzzling and remained unexplained.
9. We found Whyte's explanation about using the various substances to conduct 'research' on himself as concerning. Of all health practitioners, medical practitioners most of all must be expected to understand that laws such as the DPCS Laws and Regulations are designed to ensure substances are only used for their specified purposes and to treat a person following a proper diagnosis. More broadly, medical practitioners must be able to be relied on to be vigilant about risks associated with using substances for other purposes, particularly when they are not approved in Australia. Conducting research of the kind suggested is contrary to the practice of evidence-based medicine.
10. Finally, although we gave weight to his admissions to police, in court and before us as indicating some remorse and insight, there was nothing substantive before us which gave a complete account of how the conduct was engaged in and how Whyte now reflected on that conduct. We accepted he knew it was wrong but we knew little more about the underlying circumstances or his current views, beyond his disinterest in practicing medicine in the future.
11. Matters such as those referred to above are the kind the Tribunal has regard to when imposing determinations: having a good understanding of the factual circumstances surrounding the conduct and why it was engaged in allow the Tribunal to assess what is needed to protect the public and the standards of the profession and to achieve the goals of specific and general deterrence.
12. Ultimately though, we decided to make the disqualification determination as proposed by the parties, in part, because we were aware they were reached after a compulsory conference at the Tribunal.
13. We also made that decision because we accepted that Whyte has no intention of returning to the practise of medicine and, even if he changed his mind, would likely have difficulties being re-registered (or finding work) given his criminal record and these proceedings. To be re-registered he would need to satisfy the Board he was a fit and proper person and was appropriately managing his health conditions.
14. Had Whyte planned to return to practise at the end of the proposed 18 month period, on the limited information available to us, we may well have considered a longer period of time was required to achieve the purposes of determinations under the National Law.

[1] In these Reasons definitions are shown through the bolding of names or terms. Italics are used to define cases.

[4] Under paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition in section 5 of the National Law.

[9] A copy of the Conditions was sent to the Tribunal on 20 February 2025.

[11] Section 108(2) of the National Law.

[12] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34.

[13] [2019] VCAT 52 [67].

[15] See Medical Board of Australia v Jansz [2011] VCAT 1026 [358]-[373]; and Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Naik [2009] VCAT 755 [60]-[61].

[16] Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate & Ors [2015] HCA 46 [46]-[49]. See also Medical Board of Australia v Fox [2016] VCAT 408 [6] as confirmed in Medical Board of Australia v Willcourt [2018] VCAT 1032 [13]; and Secretary to the Department of Planning and Community Development v Muto [2011] VCAT 328.

[17] It is not necessary to summarise the other cases but we note they were: Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Daniels [2022] VCAT 457; Physiotherapy Board of Australia v Hapel [2020] NTCAT 4.

[18] [2023] VCAT 981; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Black [2015] VCAT 1232; and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Spillard [2021] VCAT 1112.

[19] [2020] VCAT 201.