3. On 29 May 2018, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) received a notification (notification number 00385843) on behalf of the Board about Mr Hunt relating to the matters which are the subject of these proceedings.
4. On 4 June 2018, the Board decided to investigate Mr Hunt under s 160 of the National Law with respect to notification 00385843.

6. On 20 June 2018, the Board accepted Mr Hunt's undertaking not to practise.

5. On 12 November 2018, Ahpra received a further notification (notification number 00400744) about Mr Hunt relating to the matters which are the subject of these proceedings.
6. On 22 November 2018 the Board decided to investigate Mr Hunt under s 160 of the National Law with respect to notification 00400744.

Allegation 1 - Failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a patient > > 9. In respect of allegation 1, the parties agree that: > > 9.1 Between 30 January and 22 March 2018, Mr Hunt failed to maintain professional boundaries that should, and ordinarily do, delineate the relationship between a nurse and his patient and/or former patient by establishing an intimate personal relationship with a female patient ([VAH]) immediately after the time that she was a patient under his professional care; > > 9.2 at all material times, Mr Hunt was employed as an enrolled nurse with the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network (NALHN) and worked in the Woodleigh House Mental Health Unit (WHMHU). > > 9.3 from 30 January 2018 to 19 February 2018, [VAH] was a patient at the WHMHU; > > 9.4 during [VAH]'s admission at WHMHU, Mr Hunt worked on: > > (a) 7-10 February 2018; > > (b) 13-16 February 2018; and > > (c) 18 February 2018; > > 9.5 [VAH] was vulnerable by reason of suffering from mental illness including borderline personality disorder; > > 9.6 during [VAH]'s admission to the WHMHU, Mr Hunt obtained [VAH]'s mobile phone number without clinical justification; > > 9.7 between 14 February 2018 and 2 March 2018, Mr Hunt and [VAH] exchanged a significant number of SMS and MMS messages via mobile telephone without clinical justification and in the context of a personal relationship; > > 9.8 following [VAH]'s discharge from WHMHU and in or about February 2018, [VAH] attended Mr Hunt's home for a number of days, during which time [VAH] and Mr Hunt engaged in an intimate sexual relationship; > > 9.9 between 14 February 2018 and 22 March 2018, Mr Hunt commenced an intimate and/or personal relationship with [VAH]; and > > 9.10 Mr Hunt's conduct as particularised in allegation 1 is:

(a) inconsistent with Conduct Statement 8 of the Retired Code of Conduct and Principle 4 of the Current Code of Conduct;

(b) inconsistent with the Retired Professional Boundaries Guideline;

(c) inconsistent with Standard 2 of the Standards for Practice;

(d) inconsistent with the Code of Ethics;

(e) substantially below the standard reasonably expected of an enrolled nurse of Mr Hunt's level of training and experience; and

(f) inconsistent with Mr Hunt being a fit and proper person to hold registration as an enrolled nurse.

Allegation 2 - Failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a patient

10. In respect of allegation 2, the parties agree that:

10.1 at all material times, Mr Hunt was employed as an enrolled nurse with NALHN and worked in the WHMHU.

10.2 from 7 February 2018 to 16 February 2018, [CJH] was an inpatient at the WHMHU;

10.3 during [CJH]'s admission at WHMHU, Mr Hunt worked on:

(a) 7-10 February 2018; and

(b) 13-16 February 2018;

10.4 [CJH] was vulnerable by reason of suffering from mental illness including borderline personality disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder;

10.5 during [CJH]'s admission to the WHMHU, Mr Hunt obtained [CJH]'s mobile phone number without clinical justification;

10.6 between 15 February 2018 and 16 March 2018, Mr Hunt and [CJH] exchanged a significant number of SMS and MMS messages via mobile telephone without clinical justification and in the context of a personal relationship;

10.7 Mr Hunt's conduct as particularised above is:

(a) inconsistent with Conduct Statement 8 of the Retired Code of Conduct and Principle 4 of the Current Code of Conduct;

(b) inconsistent with the Retired Professional Boundaries Guideline;

(c) inconsistent with Standard 2 of the Standards for Practice;

(d) inconsistent with the Code of Ethics;

(e) substantially below the standard reasonably expected of an enrolled nurse of Mr Hunt's level of training or experience; and

(f) inconsistent with Mr Hunt being a fit and proper person to hold registration as an enrolled nurse.

1. The Tribunal accepts the Statement of Agreed Facts signed on behalf of both parties. The Tribunal makes findings in accordance with the Statement of Agreed Facts.
2. The parties jointly submitted that the respondent's conduct as described in Allegations 1 and 2 constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct set out in s 5 of the National Law.
3. The Tribunal accepts the parties' joint submission as to characterisation of the respondent's conduct. Having considered the Book of Documents, the Statement of Agreed Facts and the written submissions of each party, the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct set out in Sch 2 s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA), which read: 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. Having found that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct, the Tribunal must consider the sanction to be applied to the respondent.
2. The Statement of Agreed Facts signed by both parties sets out a proposal for sanctions. Nevertheless it emerged during the hearing that the respondent did not agree with the terms proposed by the applicant for a prohibition on him providing any health service. The Tribunal heard submissions from both parties on this issue. The respondent sought a specified period of prohibition in order to avoid 'confusion'. The applicant sought a prohibition order that would prevent the respondent from providing any health service or using any title relating to a health service unless he first regains a form of registration under the National Law. Various forms of registration exist, including student registration, provisional registration and general registration. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's submission that the respondent ought not be permitted to provide any health service without the applicant having first granted him some form of registration pursuant to Part 7 of the National Law.
3. It further emerged at the hearing that although in the signed Statement of Agreed Facts the parties sought the cancellation of the respondent's registration as a health practitioner, such an order is unnecessary because the respondent's registration lapsed on 2 July 2019.
4. The Tribunal has taken into account that:

(a) the respondent's conduct was without clinical justification and concerned vulnerable persons whom the respondent knew to be suffering mental illness;

(b) the respondent has a disciplinary history, having received a workplace caution on 26 July 2017 for making inappropriate and disrespectful comments to another staff member (BOD p312) and having received a caution from the applicant on 6 July 2018 for using the credit card of a person involuntarily admitted to hospital (BOD p313). It is unclear whether the latter incident occurred with or without the consent of the person to whom the credit card belonged but in any event the applicant was satisfied that it was conduct that failed to comply with the respondent's obligation to maintain professional boundaries, which is also the crux of the current allegations against the respondent;

(c) the Tribunal's attention was not drawn to any statement of remorse by the respondent nor to any demonstration of insight by him into his conduct, a situation exacerbated by the respondent's absence without explanation from the hearing before the Tribunal;

(d) the respondent has not practised as a nurse since 20 June 2018 when he gave an undertaking to the applicant not to practise, and due to his lack of recent practice he would face lengthy requalification hurdles if he were to seek to work again as a nurse in the future;

(e) the respondent co-operated with the Board in providing the Statement of Agreed Facts, and thus spared potential witnesses the ordeal of needing to attend at the Tribunal to give evidence.

1. The Tribunal has decided to impose the following sanctions on the respondent:

(a) a reprimand;

(b) disqualification from applying for registration as a health practitioner for 5 years from the date of this order;

(c) prohibition from providing any health service and from using any title relating to a health service unless the respondent holds registration under Part 7 of the National Law (including student registration, provisional registration or general registration).

1. The sanctions of reprimand, disqualification and a prohibition order meet the purposes of the imposition of a disciplinary sanction as discussed in Craig v Medical Board of Australia [2001] SASC 169 at [41-67].
2. The Tribunal has further decided that the respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings in an amount to be agreed, or to be determined by the Tribunal in default of agreement. The Tribunal makes the costs order against the respondent as a deterrent to both him and others from engaging in similar misconduct in future, and to indicate the Tribunal's disapproval of conduct without clinical justification concerning vulnerable persons suffering mental illness, particularly where that conduct involves a failure to maintain professional boundaries.
3. Neither party sought any amendment by the Tribunal of the confidentiality orders made on 13 April 2023, nor sought any additional orders. Those orders remain in force.

1. The Tribunal decides pursuant to s 196(1) of the National Law that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
2. The Tribunal imposes the following disciplinary action:

2.b. The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of 5 years from the date of this order.

2.c. The respondent is prohibited from providing any health service and from using any title relating to a health service unless the respondent has been granted registration under Part 7 of the National Law (including student registration, provisional registration or general registration).

1. The respondent must pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings in an amount to be agreed, or to be determined by the Tribunal in default of agreement.