This matter concerns disciplinary action against Mr George Freeman (the respondent). He was at the relevant time registered as an enrolled nurse pursuant to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (the National Law).[1] His registration is currently suspended.[2]
The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (the Board) asserts that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct and has referred the matter to this Tribunal under s 193 of the National Law.
The essential facts are not in dispute.[3] On 7 December 2017 the respondent attempted to murder his then wife. He entered her bedroom as she was getting dressed for work. He was carrying a large knife. He blocked her exit and approached her with the knife, holding it in a threatening manner. She attempted to turn away to protect herself and, as she did so, he slashed her with the knife across her back. She pleaded with the respondent for him to stop. The respondent continued to threaten her with the knife. She tried to defend herself, but the respondent continued with the attack. He cut her right hand with the knife before forcefully stabbing her near to the left shoulder. She thought she was going to die. She told the respondent that she loved him and pleaded for him to stop and call an ambulance. She then collapsed. The respondent threw some clothes on or next to her before leaving the room. He made no attempt to render any assistance.
The respondent then telephoned the victim's elderly father. He advised him that his daughter had been stabbed. When he asked who had stabbed her, the respondent stated that he had done so. The father told him to call an ambulance.
The respondent then returned to the victim and bent down next to her. He then dragged the knife through her hand, slicing it as he did so. The victim could not move or talk. She lost consciousness. At some point, after calling the victim's father, the respondent did call emergency services and requested an ambulance. He advised the operator that he had stabbed his wife. However, he did not render any physical assistance to the victim, despite advising the operator that she was "just" alive, unconscious and breathing. Obviously, through his training as a nurse, he would have had the knowledge and ability to provide assistance, but did not do so.
The victim may well have died if not for the attendance of emergency services. She suffered severe physical injuries as a result of the attack. She required continuing medical treatment in an effort to regain full use of her upper back and right arm and hand. The attack had significant and continuing psychological impact on her. She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. The incident has had a significant impact on her physically, emotionally, socially and financially.
The respondent was charged with attempted murder. He pleaded guilty to that offence on 3 June 2019 and was sentenced on 8 August 2019. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine years and ten months with a non-parole period of five years and six months. The sentence was back-dated to 7 December 2017.
The respondent is currently serving this period of imprisonment at Yatala Labour Prison. He becomes eligible for parole in June 2023.
In his sentencing remarks on 8 August 2019, Doyle J described the respondent's attack on his wife as unprovoked, premeditated, brutal, and cowardly. His Honour referred to medical evidence of Dr Raeside and Mr Reid (which is also before this Tribunal). He accepted that the respondent suffered from serious health conditions prior to the offence which affected his mental state and diminished the control he had over his emotions and thinking. This was regarded as mitigating, to some extent, his subjective moral culpability for the offending. Doyle J also accepted that the offending was out of character for the respondent.
The respondent admits that his conduct constitutes professional misconduct. That is clearly so. It is conduct that is inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to be registered.
The registration of the respondent was suspended on 12 January 2018 as a result of immediate action taken by the Board.
The parties have both lodged submissions as to the disciplinary sanctions that should be imposed. Both parties request that the matter be determined on the papers, without an oral hearing. The Tribunal agrees that such is appropriate.
The Board submits that the Tribunal should impose a reprimand, cancel the respondent's registration, and disqualify him from applying for registration for a period of 10 years.[4]
The respondent agrees that there should be a reprimand and cancellation of registration. He submits that there should be a disqualification for a period of six years.
The Tribunal notes the medical evidence as referred to above. The respondent has serious health issues which appear to be progressive. It appears unlikely that he will ever be medically fit to practise nursing in the future. However, this is not the issue before the Tribunal at present. It is a matter to be considered by the Board if there was any application in the future.
The present task for the Tribunal is to impose disciplinary action that adequately reflects the incompatibility of the misconduct with the fitness of a person to be registered in the nursing profession. The disciplinary action should be such as to convey to other practitioners and to the general public that such conduct is incompatible with registration and will not be tolerated. It should be sufficient to assure the public that standards within the profession will be maintained and the public will be adequately protected.
The Tribunal agrees that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand. It is also appropriate to cancel the respondent's registration.
Noting the fact that the registration of the respondent has been suspended since 12 January 2018, the Tribunal has decided to disqualify the respondent from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of 15 years from the date of this order. This is considerably longer than the period sought by the Board. We consider, however, that it is an appropriate period. The respondent's conduct involved an unprovoked, premeditated, and brutal attack with a knife on his then wife in her own home. He persisted in the attack and, despite his nursing knowledge and experience, failed to render any physical assistance to the victim when she was in danger of dying. We consider it would be an affront to public confidence in the nursing profession if such a person was allowed to apply for registration at any earlier time.
The Board is entitled to an order for its costs and the respondent's impecuniosity is not a basis for denying such order. It is to be hoped, however, that the Board will have due regard to the circumstances and health of the respondent in its approach to the enforcement of such order.
[2]
The Tribunal made the following orders:
Pursuant to s 196(1) of the National Law, the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.
Pursuant to s 196(2)(e) of the National Law, the respondent's registration is cancelled.
Pursuant to s 196(4) of the National Law, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of 15 years from the date of this Order.
The respondent is to pay the Board's costs of this proceeding to be agreed or, in default of agreement, to be fixed by the Tribunal.
[3]
[1] The National Law is found in Schedule 2 to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010(the Act) and is incorporated as part of the law of this jurisdiction.
[4]
[2] By virtue of immediate action taken by the Board on 12 January 2018.
[5]
[3] The following statement of the facts is based on the Sentencing Remarks of Doyle J delivered on 8 August 2019.
[6]
[4] There is reference in the submission to "8 - 10 years" being the appropriate range.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia
Respondent/Defendant:
Freeman [2020] SACAT 88
Legislation Cited (1)
Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010
Cases Cited (1)
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Freeman [2020] SACAT 88 (11 November 2020)