Having found that Ms Bartlett has engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in Charges A2, B1 and B2, and unprofessional conduct as alleged in Charges A3 and A5, the Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Ms Bartlett's registration as a nurse and midwife be cancelled.
2. Ms Bartlett may not apply for registration as a nurse or midwife for a period of for two years from the date of this decision.
3. Ms Bartlett is reprimanded.

1. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (applicant) brings six charges against Ms Dianne Bartlett, a registered nurse (respondent).
2. From August 2007 to February 2011, Ms Bartlett falsified timesheets relating to her work as a nurse at Geelong Hospital. As a result, she received over-payments amounting to $64,394.38. The other charges all relate to conduct which followed on, in one way or another, from that.
3. Ms Bartlett has worked as a nurse for 40 years. She has received positive recognition from her colleagues and employers for the way she has carried out her role in caring for patients and assisting her colleagues, over the years. But the matters the subject of the present charges relate to serious dishonesty: in addition to falsifying her timesheets, she is alleged to have obtained references by false pretences for the purposes of the Magistrates' Court prosecution which followed. Then, it is alleged, she doctored two of the references by replacing the heading 'To whom it may concern' with 'To the Presiding Magistrate'.
4. Additionally, Ms Bartlett is charged with failing to notify the Board, within seven days that her right to practise at Geelong Hospital had been withdrawn. She was also charged with failing to notify the Board within seven days of the fact that she was convicted of obtaining property by deception in the sum of $64,394.38 in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria on 24 August 2011. The final charge in effect alleges that on 8 December 2011, just prior to resigning from her position as the senior school nurse at Kardinia International College, Geelong, Ms Bartlett deleted important health records of children at the school.
5. Ms Bartlett consciously decided not to attend the hearing, and confirmed this with the Board's solicitors in the days before the hearing. She stated through her former lawyers in correspondence to the Board's solicitors at the time of their ceasing to act, in July 2013, that she no longer wishes to defend the proceedings and intends to retire from nursing due to personal reasons. Despite in effect admitting to most of the allegations against her in correspondence to the Board and its solicitors, there was no plea of guilty or agreed statement of facts. So the Board was required to lead evidence to prove the charges against her. The following witnesses gave evidence:
   • Mr Serge Coppe - Human Resources Advisor, Barwon Health (Geelong Hospital).
   • Ms Glynis Porter (by telephone from Western Australia) - a former colleague and friend of Ms Bartlett's who had provided a personal reference for her.
   • Mr John Goodfellow (by telephone from Dubai) - Principal of Kardinia International College, who had also provided a personal reference for Ms Bartlett.
   • Ms Joanne Drenovac - a part-time nurse at Kardinia International College, and colleague of Ms Bartlett's, who had also provided a character reference for Ms Bartlett.
   • Mr Brendan Harre - Training Co-ordinator, Asthma Foundation of Victoria.
   • Dianna Murase - IT Manager at Kardinia International College.
6. The Tribunal Book did, however, contain a number of documents which conveyed Ms Bartlett's response to allegations made against her. It also contained information about her health, and some mitigating material. We take all this into account, although it has less weight than evidence which is sworn, and where Ms Bartlett has been subject to cross-examination.
7. The referral to VCAT listed 10 charges. The Board only proceeded with six, these being Nos. A2, A3 and A5 and B1, B2 and B5. All of the charges were brought under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law) relating to conduct since 1 July 2010. However, charge A2 also relates to conduct under the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (HPR Act) namely between August 2007 and 30 June 2010. Charges A3 and A5 allege unprofessional conduct. All the other charges allege professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct.
8. The investigation by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) arose from two notifications about the conduct of Ms Bartlett. The first was from Ms Ann Hague, who we understand to be a representative of Barwon Health, on 11 April 2012. This gave rise to charges A2, A3 and A5. The second notification was from Ms Joanne Drenovac of Kardinia International College, on 16 November 2011. It gave rise to charges B1, B2 and B5.

Allegations under both the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009

Between in or around August 2007 and in or around February 2011, Ms Bartlett falsified timesheets resulting in a $64,394.38 overpayment to her by her employer at the time, Barwon Health, and engaged in:

(a) For the time period between in or around August 2007 and on or about 30 June 2010, professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (b) and/or (c) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in section 3(1) of the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (HPR Act) and/or unprofessional conduct as defined in paragraph (a) of the definition of 'unprofessional conduct' in section 3(1) of the HPR Act.

(b) For the time period between on or about 1 July 2010 and in or around February 2011, professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' in section 5 of the National Law and/or unprofessional conduct as defined in section 5 of the National Law.

(a) Ms Bartlett deliberately submitted timesheets to Barwon Health claiming payment for 166 shifts that she did not work.

(b) Ms Bartlett deliberately submitted timesheets to Barwon Health claiming 'in charge' payments for 28 shifts, when she was not in charge.

(c) Ms Bartlett deliberately submitted timesheets claiming that she worked 7 shifts when she was either on sick leave or carers' leave.

1. Mr Serge Coppe of Barwon Health Human Resources gave evidence in relation to Charge A2. He said that an anomaly in Ms Bartlett's timesheets was discovered in February 2011. It was discovered that her timesheets indicated she had worked for two shifts which she had not, and also that she had worked on another occasion when she was in fact on sick leave. An investigation followed. This revealed false timesheets and overpayments consequently received by Ms Bartlett over the previous three and a half years, going back to August 2007. What Ms Bartlett had done was to alter her timesheets surreptitiously after they had been signed off by her supervisor. (The hospital has since changed its procedures to prevent this from occurring.)
2. When this was put to Ms Bartlett on 10 March 2011, she admitted her fraudulent conduct. Her employment as a nurse at Geelong Hospital was terminated.
3. Ms Bartlett and her husband arranged to refinance their home loan, in order to refund the overpayments of $64,394.38 which she had received. This occurred soon after the fraud was discovered.
4. Ms Bartlett has admitted the conduct the subject of Charge A2. In a letter dated 15 March 2011, she accepted that she had falsely claimed for $64,394.38. She 'apologised unreservedly'. She provided some detail in relation to the circumstances in which she started her practice of altering her timesheets. She stated that in 2007, she was working two jobs at the same time which was taking its toll both mentally and physically. She had a lot of family issues. She said her brother's business was failing. As a result their mother's life savings were drained. Both her brother and her mother were depressed. She assisted her brother with his mortgage and car lease payments. Eventually he had to sell up his property. He was living with their mother, a pensioner, and struggling financially. Around that time her brother was diagnosed with cancer. Ms Bartlett also referred to her own depression which had stemmed all the way back to the death of her father from cancer in 1984. She said she had always been the corner-post for her family and friends, helping them out with their issues wherever she could. In hindsight she should have been seeking help herself. She said that what she had done was not to gain benefit for herself, but was a misguided attempt to prevent her brother from suffering financial ruin. She said her conduct was totally out of character and she now realised she needed help and had started counselling with a psychologist and was on anti-depressant medication.
5. On 24 August 2011, Ms Bartlett pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining property by deception in relation to these overpayments. She was convicted and given a three month prison sentence, wholly suspended.
6. We find the facts of Charge A2 proved. We also find that Ms Bartlett's conduct constitutes professional misconduct under s 3(1) of the HPR Act (for the period from August 2007 to 30 June 2010) and professional misconduct under s 5 of the National Law (in relation to her conduct from 1 July 2010 to February 2011).
7. That expression is defined in s 3(1) of the HPR Act as follows:

(a) unprofessional conduct of a health practitioner, where the conduct involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence; and

(b) conduct that violates or falls short of, to a substantial degree, the standard of professional conduct observed by members of the profession of good repute or competency; and

(c) conduct of a health practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner's health profession or occurring otherwise than in connection with the practice of a health profession, that would, if established, justify a finding that the practitioner is not of good character or is otherwise not a fit and proper person to engage in the practice of that health profession;

1. It is clear that Ms Bartlett's conduct constitutes professional misconduct under (b) and (c) of the definition of that term in the HPR Act. The theft of a substantial sum from her employer in the manner described above, over a long period, demonstrates a lack of good character under (c). And in relation to (b), the falsification of time sheets at her work place is clearly conduct which violates, or falls short of, to a substantial degree, the standard of professional conduct observed by members of the nursing profession of good repute.
2. In relation to the period from July 2010 to February 2011, Ms Bartlett's conduct constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of (a) and (c) of the definition of that term in the National Law. The definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law is 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.

1. In terms of (a), it is conduct which is below the standard reasonably expected of a nurse with an equivalent level of training or experience, for the reasons stated above. Further, under (c), (while noting that consideration of determination is a matter to be dealt with subsequently) it is not conduct which is consistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a nurse. Ms Bartlett's conduct constitutes a significant breach of trust. It undermines the community's confidence in the nursing profession. It is a breach of fundamental ethical standards.

Allegations under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009

In or about March 2011, Ms Bartlett engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined in section 5 of the National Law, in that Ms Bartlett failed to notify the Board, within 7 days, pursuant to section 130(1) of the National Law, that her right to practise at Geelong Hospital had been withdrawn.

(a) Ms Bartlett's employment with Barwon Health was terminated on or about 10 March 2011 as a result of Ms Bartlett fraudulently obtaining $64,394.98 in overpayments from Barwon Health by submitting false timesheets.

(b) Ms Bartlett submitted a registration renewal form to the Board on 30 March 2011 and failed to disclose that her right to practise at Geelong Hospital had been withdrawn.

1. On 30 March 2011, 19 days after she was dismissed by Geelong Hospital, Ms Bartlett submitted an application to renew her registration as a nurse to the Board. In answer to the question as to whether her right to practise at any health services facility had been withdrawn because of her conduct, she answered 'no'. This was clearly untrue. We are satisfied that Ms Bartlett has breached s 130(1) of the National Law. Charge A2 is proved.
2. We find that this constitutes unprofessional conduct under limb (a) of the definition of that expression 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, and includes -

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

(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; and

1. While compliance with such regulatory requirements is important it has not been regarded as being of the same level of seriousness as conduct involving dishonesty or which seriously compromises patient care. It is necessary that the Board, as regulator, is promptly made aware of action taken by a nurse's employers to remove their right to practise, in order for it to be able to evaluate the circumstances in which this occurred. This is so it can determine what further action needs to be taken, in order to maintain professional standards, and the public's confidence in the profession.

Between on or about 24 August 2011 and in or around September 2011, Ms Bartlett engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined in section 5 of the National Law, in that she failed to notify the Board, within 7 days, pursuant to section 130(1) of the National Law, that she had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of one count of obtaining property by deception in the amount of $64,394.38 in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

1. Ms Bartlett in effect admitted this charge through her former lawyers. By letter dated 31 January 2012, Ryan Carlisle Thomas stated that Ms Bartlett admitted that allegation, but was not aware of her obligation to report the Magistrates' Court finding against her to the Board. In her letter to the Board's solicitors dated 9 July 2013, Ms Bartlett said that her solicitors had advised her from the very start not to speak to AHPRA, all correspondence should be through them.
2. During the hearing, Ms Ellyard acknowledged that in a plea type situation, Charge A5 could well have ended up not being proceeded with on the basis that a plea had been made to similar conduct under Charge A3. Ms Bartlett did not, however, engage with the VCAT process, and so the Board was required formally to prove the charges. In the circumstances, we find Charge A5 proved. Nurses are required to notify the Board after they are convicted or found guilty of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment - as was the case here, where she was convicted of obtaining property by deception under s 81 of the Crimes Act 1958.
3. Once again, it is important for the operation of the regulatory regime that the Board, as regulator, is promptly made aware of the serious criminal findings against registered nurses, for the reasons mentioned in relation to Charge A3.
4. For the same reasons as set out in relation to Charge A3 (but with reference to sub clause (c) of the definition of 'unprofessional conduct' rather than sub clause (a)), we find that Ms Bartlett's failure to notify of her conviction constitutes unprofessional conduct.

Allegations under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009

Between in or around July 2011 and in or around August 2011, Ms Bartlett engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (c) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' and/or unprofessional conduct as defined in section 5 of the National Law, in that Ms Bartlett obtained character references, which she intended to use in her sentencing hearing before the Magistrates' Court of Victoria on 24 August 2011, under false pretences.

(a) Ms Bartlett asked Ms Joanne Drenovac (Ms Drenovac) and Mr John Goodfellow (Mr Goodfellow) to write character references for her and told Ms Drenovac and Mr Goodfellow that the character references were for her role as a trainer with the Asthma Foundation of Victoria.

(b) Ms Drenovac and Mr Goodfellow were unaware that Ms Bartlett had been charged with obtaining property by deception in the amount of $64,394.38, at the time that Ms Bartlett requested the character references from them.

(c) Ms Drenovac and Mr Goodfellow were unaware at the time that Ms Bartlett intended to use their character references at her sentencing hearing before the Magistrates' Court of Victoria on 24 August 2011.

Between in or around July 2011 and in or around September 2011, Ms Bartlett engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (c) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' and/or unprofessional conduct as defined in section 5 of the National Law, in that Ms Bartlett altered character references without the authors' knowledge or consent, for the intended purpose of using the character references in her sentencing hearing before the Magistrates' Court of Victoria on 24 August 2011.

(a) On or about 20 July 2011, Ms Bartlett altered the character reference provided to her by Ms Drenovac by changing the addressee from 'To Whom It May concern' to 'To the Presiding Magistrate' without Ms Drenovac's knowledge or consent.

(b) On or about 20 July 2011, Ms Bartlett manually cut out Ms Drenovac's signature from the original character reference provided by Ms Drenovac, and pasted Ms Drenovac's signature on the altered character reference addressed 'To the Presiding Magistrate', without Ms Drenovac's knowledge or consent.

(c) On or about 19 September 2011, Ms Bartlett again altered Ms Drenovac's character reference by changing the addressee from 'To the Presiding Magistrate' back to 'To Whom It May Concern', without Ms Drenovac's knowledge or consent.

(d) Ms Bartlett changed the addressee of the character reference provided to her by Ms Glynis Porter (Ms Porter) from 'To Whom It May Concern' to 'To the Presiding Magistrate', without Ms Porter's knowledge or consent.

(e) Ms Bartlett forged Ms Porter's signature on the character reference provided to her by Ms Porter, without Ms Porter's knowledge or consent.

1. Mr Goodfellow, the Principal of Kardinia International College gave evidence as follows:

At the time of providing Dianne a character reference, I was not aware that [Ms Bartlett] had been charged with obtaining property by deception from Barwon Health. I was also not aware that my reference was provided to Victoria Police and the Magistrates' Court of Victoria for the purposes of Dianne's sentencing hearing on 24 August 2011.

On or about Thursday 25 August 2011, the Geelong Advertiser ran an article in relation to Dianne being convicted of obtaining property by deception from Barwon Health in the amount of $64,000. As Dianne's conduct was unrelated to Kardinia and did not impact upon her working with children clearance, her conviction did not affect her employment with Kardinia.

1. The reference provided by Mr Goodfellow was a very positive one. Amongst other things it referred to her as being a person of great warmth, good humour, compassion, honesty and integrity. It said she had a great sense of compassion carefully balanced with a very practical and professional manner. She was one of two nurses servicing 1800 students and over 200 staff at the college. She was said to be a strong educator who gave freely of her time and energy to see tasks through to successful completion.
2. During his evidence, Mr Goodfellow said that in the light of what he now knew, he would write a different reference - one which omitted reference to her honesty and trustworthiness.
3. Ms Bartlett admitted in her letter of 9 July 2013 that she obtained the references from Mr Goodfellow and Ms Drenovac under false pretences. She also admitted to surreptitiously altering the heading on the references provided by Ms Drenovac and Ms Porter. There was a difference between her version and Ms Drenovac's evidence as to the precise mechanics of how the heading on the reference came to be altered and as to how Ms Drenovac's signature came to be at the foot of the reference. However, it is not necessary for us to make precise findings as to these matters of detail. It is clear from the evidence of Ms Drenovac and Ms Bartlett that the reference was originally headed 'To whom it may concern', and was altered surreptitiously by Ms Bartlett to 'To the Presiding Magistrate'.
4. Ms Drenovac's reference for Ms Bartlett was also very positive. She stated that in light of what she now knows, she would however, not include in her reference statements that Ms Bartlett was 'trustworthy', and 'a valuable asset for any organisation'.
5. Ms Porter's evidence was that Ms Bartlett changed the heading and forged her signature on the character reference she had provided, without her knowledge or consent. She said that Ms Bartlett had subsequently told her of the change of heading. Ms Porter stated that she was not concerned that Ms Bartlett had altered the heading on the reference, because she had been informed that it was for the purposes of use at the Magistrates' Court hearing. The reference had been emailed to Ms Bartlett from Western Australia, where Ms Porter lives. Ms Porter said, however, that Ms Bartlett had not told her that she had forged her signature on the reference.
6. Ms Porter's reference, like Mr Goodfellow's and Ms Drenovac's, was very positive. She said she had at all times found Ms Bartlett to be dependable, reliable, hardworking, conscientious, honest, peace loving and courteous. She demonstrated a high level of nursing skills and knowledge in the six years that she had worked together with Ms Porter. She was compassionate and caring to both patients and colleagues. In her evidence, Ms Porter stated she still adhered to the statements she made in her reference.
7. Ms Bartlett also stated in her letter of 9 July 2013 that the references from Mr Goodfellow, Ms Drenovac and Ms Porter were not in fact used at the Magistrates' Court hearing. This was because her counsel had advised against this, when he was told that the referees had not in fact been made aware that the references were for the purposes of the court hearing (rather than for the Asthma Foundation).
8. While Ms Bartlett's conduct in obtaining the references by false pretences, and altering them without the knowledge of her referees is only indirectly connected with her work as a nurse, we are satisfied it amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered nurse of her level of training and experience. Hence it constitutes professional misconduct under (a) of the definition of that term in the National Law.
9. More significantly, however, we are satisfied it constitutes professional misconduct under (c) of the definition. Again, it is self evident that this is seriously dishonest conduct. The Board submitted that the fact that the references were not in fact provided to the Magistrate (accepting Ms Bartlett's statement to that effect) does not reduce Ms Bartlett's moral culpability for her actions in obtaining the references under false pretences, and then falsifying the headings. We agree, although we note that Ms Bartlett appears to have refrained from perpetuating the dishonesty - by informing her barrister of the true position prior to the hearing. It appears she advised her barrister that the referees had not in fact been told their references were for the purposes of the Magistrate's Court hearing - even though the references by then were headed up 'to The Presiding Magistrate'. So we are prepared to assume in Ms Bartlett's favour that she repented - at least of her decision to falsify the heading on the references - of her own volition, before the court hearing.
10. Nevertheless, it is clear Ms Bartlett embarked on a course of conduct which was intended to mislead a court, and this is a matter of the utmost seriousness. It is inconsistent with the way a nurse who is fit and proper to hold registration would conduct themselves.

Between in or around November 2011 to in or around December 2011, Ms Bartlett engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (c) of the definition of 'professional misconduct' and/or unprofessional conduct as defined in section 5 of the National Law, in that she deleted electronic student health records from Kardinia International College, which were unable to be recovered.

(a) Prior to Ms Bartlett's resignation from Kardinia International Group on 8 December 2011, she deleted every document from the desktop computer in the nurses' office under her login, which included student health records, anaphylaxis management plans, and diabetic registers, which could not be recovered.

(b) Ms Bartlett deleted every document from the laptop computer that Kardinia International College had loaned her, which included student health records, anaphylaxis management plans, diabetic registers, most of which could not be recovered.

1. The Board relied upon the witness statements and oral evidence of Ms Drenovac and Ms Diana Murase. As stated, Ms Bartlett did not appear, but the Tribunal took into account the contents of her statement in relation to these two allegations.
2. Ms Drenovac is currently employed at Kardinia International College as a school nurse. At the time of the conduct complained of, Ms Drenovac was working part-time at the College and Ms Bartlettt was working full-time.
3. Ms Murase gave evidence that all medical information about the students at the College was entered into the database on the desktop computer in the nurses' office. There was only one desktop computer in the office, and this was accessed by both Ms Bartlett and Ms Drenovac. Ms Murase said both Ms Bartlett and Ms Drenovac used that computer and had their own individual logins which had a unique password and username and could only be accessed by that person. The desktop computer had an H-drive to which the users could store their own personal information, and a C-drive which was unique to that desktop computer. It was to the C-drive that medical information about the students was entered and stored. All the information stored on the C-drive was then supposed to be backed up each day to the K-drive, which was a shared network with multiple users (albeit with appropriate restrictions to protect private information). Ms Murase said that Ms Bartlett had been given instructions as to the backup of all information from the C-drive to the K-drive, that it was her role to back up this information as she worked full-time, and that Ms Bartlett understood the process of how to back this up.
4. Ms Murase stated that on or about 27 January 2012, she received a telephone call from Ms Drenovac saying she was unable to access the medical files of the students on the C-drive in the desktop computer. In response, she organised for Mr Sam Holloway-Roden, who works in the IT Department, to run a recovery process on the desktop computer. He was unable to recover the majority of the files on the C-drive. Additionally, when looking at the K-drive, none of those files had been backed up, which meant that the information that had previously been entered could not be retrieved. Ms Murase told the Tribunal that she could not say when the information was deleted, who had deleted it, and how much information had been deleted. All she could say was that most had been deleted and data which remained could not be interpreted. She also stated in the period from the time when Ms Bartlett had finished work on 11 December 2011 until Ms Drenovac contacted her on 27 January 2012, a number of people could have accessed the computer, that it was possible that the computer had been accessed during that time, but she considered it unlikely as the nurses' office did not operate during the school break.
5. Ms Drenovac gave evidence that she was on leave from 20 November 2011 until after Ms Bartlett left the College's employment on 8 December 2011. Upon her return to work on 27 January 2012 as a school nurse, she logged in through her own log-in and accessed the C-drive and found that there was nothing there. She said that she then tried to log onto the K-drive and found that there was nothing there and thereafter contacted the IT Department. Further, Ms Drenovac stated that in the period from 20 November 2011 until 27 January 2012, she did not have access to the desktop computer but that in that period there were others working in the nurses' office, namely Ms Bartlett's son and a couple of students who worked as a community placement. She stated that she did not herself remove the files from the C-drive.
6. Ms Bartlett said in a letter she sent to the Board dated 9 July 2013 that she had had no training in computers and had learnt on the job that various people would help her if she had problems. She also stated that 'Sarah Danielle (Lab Tech) was my support and became a very close colleague supporting me. She helped me to improve management plans, incident and accident plans. Sarah would back-up the computer for me.' She also stated that on her final day she requested her employer, Mr Goodfellow, to come to the Medical Centre to be given a handover. She stated that she did not trust Ms Drenovac and wished him to check 'all rooms and content'. She stated that the desktop computer data was untouched. She stated that 'only folders that I had created to help me in my role, [which] I had no further use for, were removed'. Thus Ms Bartlett contended in effect that she denied the removal from the desktop computer of the student files. She also referred to some hard copy student medical information in a filing cabinet in the nurses' office.
7. Ms Murase further gave evidence that Ms Bartlett had, pursuant to an arrangement with the College, borrowed a laptop which could be used both at work and remotely, and that upon return of that laptop by Ms Bartlett, it was discovered that the laptop data had been wiped and that she was only able to recover a limited number of files.
8. In her letter of 9 July 2013, Ms Bartlett denied that the laptop was borrowed, rather, she was purchasing it through fortnightly deductions from her salary, but had later decided not to take up the option of purchasing it at the conclusion of employment. Ms Bartlett stated that she returned it as a blank computer as her husband had advised her that no personal files should be left on it, and that there were no files on it that weren't on the system at school. Ms Bartlett in effect admitted deleting the medical files of the students from the laptop computer.
9. In the circumstances, we can understand why deleting data from the laptop would be regarded as appropriate. We are not satisfied that deleting the data from the laptop is conduct which could amount to professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct. We find particular (b) not proved.
10. The allegation in particular (a) relates to the removal of the electronic student health records from the desktop computer in the nurses' office. The evidence given at the hearing was to the effect that Ms Bartlett failed properly to back up the computer data from the C-drive of the desktop computer onto the K-drive of the network. But that is not what particular (a) alleges.
11. The allegation that Ms Bartlett deleted electronic student health records is a serious one. The implication is that this was done by the Respondent with malicious intent - as the alternative, being that it was accidentally removed, would not have amounted to such a serious disciplinary matter.
12. In any event, we are not satisfied that particular (a) has been proved. Having considered all the evidence, we have been unable to reach a level of satisfaction, on the balance of probabilities, which would meet the threshold required in Briginshaw v Briginshaw,[1] of 'actual persuasion' or reasonable satisfaction' (bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation made) that Ms Bartlett deleted the information. The effect of the evidence was that after the resignation of Ms Bartlett on 8 December 2011, up to 29 January 2012, it was possible that others had access to the desktop computer, that it was unable to be ascertained when, by whom and how much information had been deleted (Ms Murase), and that in the period from 20 November 2011 until 27 January 2012, there were others working in the nurses' office, (Ms Drenovac).
13. Further, we infer that Ms Bartlett did not have great expertise or confidence with the IT system, and it is possible that she removed material from the CDrive without fully understanding the implications of what she was doing. Overall, there is a lack of clarity about these matters, such that we are not satisfied that any deletions she actually did do amounted to professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct. In light of the uncertainties surrounding these matters, we find the allegations under Charge B5 have not been proved.

1. Thus, we find Ms Bartlett has engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in Charges A2, B1 and B2. And she has engaged in unprofessional conduct as alleged in Charges A3 and A5.

1. While it would generally be appropriate to conduct a further hearing after these findings have been made, at which submissions could be made as to the determination in which should follow, it is not necessary for that to occur here. Ms Bartlett has made it clear she does not wish to participate in the VCAT proceeding. Hence, we heard the Board's submissions on the determinations which should be made, and we now proceed to consider that question.
2. The Board submitted that the appropriate determinations were:
   • Cancellation of Ms Bartlett's registration
   • A reprimand
   • Disqualification from applying for registration for a period of three years.

These are all determinations which are available under both the HPRA (s 77) and the National Law (s 196).

1. While Ms Bartlett has been prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court for the criminal offence of obtaining property by deception, these are separate professional disciplinary proceedings. Their purpose is the protection of the public, and the maintenance of the professional standards of nurses in the eyes of the public. While our function is not to impose a 'punishment' specific and general deterrence are both legitimate considerations.
2. Although Ms Bartlett has chosen not to participate in this hearing, we have taken into account the mitigating factors which have emerged from the material in the Tribunal Book. We understand the personal matters which were impacting on her at the time she made the false claims for additional salary payments from her employer. There were the issues relating to her family and her depression, referred to above. We also infer from the material we have received that she had provided valuable and caring service to patients, and support for her colleagues, over the course of her long career as a nurse. Further, it was in her favour that she made full admissions once her conduct was discovered by Barwon Health. She expressed genuine contrition. She made arrangements promptly to repay the monies she had obtained by deception.
3. The impact of this was, however, reduced by her subsequent dishonesty in relation to the obtaining of personal references for the court hearing which followed. We accept this was a manifestation of her shame at having to admit to others the conduct she had engaged in. Nevertheless, it has the implication that she cannot claim her dishonesty was in relation to one course of conduct only. Further, the false claims for payment continued over a long period - three and a half years. Her failure to advise the Board of notifiable matters is also a breach of her responsibilities as a registered professional, which could undermine the Board in carrying out its role of protecting the public. Ms Bartlett is not of course able to claim any credit for a plea of guilty. The Board was required to prove the charges against her.
4. Ms Bartlett's conduct is so serious that, after factoring in the mitigatory factors referred to above, a substantial period of prohibition from practice is warranted. It is necessary to impose a sanction which reflects the serious breaches of trust which her conduct entails, and which affirms that such conduct is quite unacceptable and undermines the public's confidence in the nursing profession.
5. Weighing up the above matters, we determine that the following determination is appropriate: Ms Bartlett's registration as a nurse is to be cancelled, and she is not able to reapply for registration for two years. She is also reprimanded for her conduct.

[1] [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.