1. There was one major allegation made against the respondent regarding his conviction for serious drug offences. There were four further allegations made against the respondent regarding his consequential failures to notify his professional body within seven days of the fact of the charges, misrepresenting his circumstances regarding his criminal history when applying for registration renewal with AHPRA and failing to inform his employer in a timely manner that he had been charged and then convicted of the offences. Together the conduct was said to amount to professional misconduct.

1. On 25 January 2017 members of the South Australian Police Department attended at the respondent's property and discovered that he was engaging in criminal conduct regarding the cultivation of cannabis. He was subsequently charged with the following criminal offences:
   • (i) Cultivating cannabis, being a controlled plant and intending to sell any of the plants or their products contrary to s 30B(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) (CS Act).

(ii) Without reasonable excuse being in possession of prescribed equipment contrary to s 33LA of the CS Act.

(iii) Trafficking in a large commercial quantity of controlled drug contrary to s 32(1) of the CS Act.

(iv) Without proper authority interfering with a metre or other device for measuring the consumption of electricity supplied by electricity entity contrary to s 85(1)(b) of the Electricity Act 1996 (SA).

1. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charges in the Magistrates Court of South Australia on 10 October 2017. As a result of the guilty plea, he was sentenced on 26 February 2018 in the South Australia District Court to a sentence of imprisonment of two years, with a non-parole period of nine months.
2. He initially served a portion of the sentence of imprisonment for two months but was then released on home detention to be served at his home at Blair Athol. The respondent is currently on parole and will remain on parole until February 2020.

1. The respondent was required to inform the Board within seven days of being charged with the offences.[2] He was arrested on 25 January 2017 and charged with the offences on 2 March 2017. He did not notify the Board (via AHPRA) until 30 November 2017 of the fact of the charges. He also advised the Board at that time that he had pleaded guilty on 10 October 2017. He was sentenced in the District Court on 26 February 2018.
2. On 28 March 2017 Mr Pannell applied for renewal of his registration as a nurse. He was required in that form to declare whether there had been any changes to his criminal history. He failed to reveal that he had been charged with the criminal offences.
3. The respondent failed to inform his employer of the charges or of the sentence until 28 March 2018. That notification was made by his mother on his behalf who purported to be doing so as his power of attorney. The power of attorney was signed as a deed on 1 December 2017 and accepted to be done at that time.

Admissions and submissions as to the appropriate sanction

1. The matters alleged by the complainant were substantially admitted by the respondent.
2. The respondent conceded that the conviction for drug offences and the related charge under the Electricity Act and his failures to notify AHPRA, to misrepresent his criminal history and his failure to advise his employer about the charges, the conviction and sentence would together amount to conduct upon which it would be open to the Tribunal to make a finding of professional misconduct.
3. The respondent accepted that it would be open for the Tribunal to impose a disciplinary sanction and conceded that an order for disqualification from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period would be appropriate.
4. The respondent did not give evidence in the proceedings before the Tribunal. He was content to rely upon a statement of agreed facts. He offered nothing further to the Tribunal by way of explanation or mitigation regarding the criminal offences apart from what was before the Tribunal by way of the District Court sentencing remarks, the psychological report of Dr Fugler, and the contents of the police apprehension report and annexed photographs.
5. He did offer some explanation for some of his failures to notify his professional body and his employer about the charges and the outcome of those charges. The explanations were not put forward as an attempt to excuse his conduct or to refute that the allegations, together with the primary allegations, amounted to professional misconduct, but rather as an explanation for his conduct.
6. The respondent's explanation for failing to advise AHPRA about the charges within seven days of the charges or on his registration renewal form was that he mistakenly thought that he was not required to inform the board until he was convicted of any offences. He also put forward the same explanation for his failure to advise his employer about the charges.
7. He submitted that his failure to advise his employer about the fact of his conviction and sentence in a more timely way was due to the fact that he was at that time incarcerated and it was difficult for him to make contact from within Yatala labour prison given his circumstances and the level of bureaucracy in every action within the prison, which made it difficult for him to access a telephone or writing materials.
8. The respondent stated that he was not likely to seek to continue working in his profession as a nurse. He was unlikely to seek a renewal of his registration. He was hoping to continue operating his own business performing a mobile welding service.
9. He invited the Tribunal to note that he had undertaken some treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and asked us to note that he had engaged positively with the Offender's Aid Rehabilitation Services Community Transitions Program and had accomplished his goal within that program. The OARS case officer noted in a letter that he has been attending all appointments for drug and alcohol counselling and has been engaging well with those appointments. The case officer also noted that he had expressed remorse and regret for his offending and is confident that he would not reoffend.
10. We also take into account the letter from the community corrections officer, Mark Harris, which reveals that drug testing as part of his parole conditions indicates that Mr Pannell has returned consistently negative test results. Mr Harris also noted that Mr Pannell has commenced his own business and has achieved some success in this venture. Mr Pannell is described by Mr Harris as a self-motivated individual who is well-placed for rehabilitation. In the circumstances, some credit should be given to Mr Pannell for attending the disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal to own up to and accept the disciplinary sanction which is to be imposed.
11. The complainant conceded that the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Beazley in the District Court indicated that the criminal offending for the trafficking offence was at the lowest end of offending of this type. There was no suggestion that the respondent had organised anyone to buy or sell the cannabis or that he was part of an active commercial trading operation. There was no suggestion that he was part of some serious and organised crime group. However, the Judge noted that the cannabis was intended to be sold for profit to assist in Mr Pannell's financial situation. The Judge stated that: "the rationale of the Act is to prevent people like the respondent from growing cannabis for sale, as that provides the product to those directly involved in serious and organised crime".[3]
12. The complainant submitted that the gravity of the criminal offences relating to the convictions for the serious drug offences in this case is reflected by the penalty which could have been imposed (namely, a significant period of imprisonment) and not that which was actually imposed. Although the respondent's offending in this particular case was at the lower end of the scale of offending, and he was appearing before the court as a first offender, the complainant noted that the District Court's finding as to the gravity of the offending was reflected in the fact that the period of imprisonment was not suspended.
13. The complainant submitted that the respondent's failure to notify the Board of the charges was an aggravating feature of the respondent's conduct.
14. The complainant submitted that the National Law scheme makes it clear that it is important for registrants to disclose their criminal conduct (including alleged conduct by way of charges). The complainant argued that prompt notification is integral to the functionality of an occupational regulatory board. In particular, it permits a Board to guarantee the speedy investigation of matters and to maintain the safety of the public by taking immediate action if need be.
15. The complainant submitted that serious criminal behaviour, including behaviour of this type, may go to the heart of whether a person is "fit and proper to hold registration".
16. The complainant encouraged the Tribunal to place little weight on the respondent's explanation for failing to notify the Board in a timely manner of the charges. The complainant suggested that the respondent's claim of ignorance of this requirement was not an excuse and that it was open to the Tribunal to find that his explanation lacked frankness and candour. The complainant referred the Tribunal to the definition of criminal history in the National Law (which includes every conviction, every plea of guilty or finding of guilt and every charge made against a person for an offence).
17. The complainant also referred the Tribunal to the Registration Standard: Criminal History which is available on the AHPRA website. This standard again clearly sets out the reference to the definition of criminal history. It is a requirement of the National Law that health practitioners notify the national board of their criminal history and to reveal their criminal history when seeking renewal of their registration.
18. The complainant submitted that the failure of the respondent to promptly notify his employer of the charges or of the outcome of the offending was a further aggravating factor for the Tribunal to take into account in relation to disciplinary sanction.

Findings and consideration as to disciplinary sanction

1. We are well satisfied to the requisite standard,[4] taking into account the nature of the proceedings and the seriousness of the consequences of these proceedings to the respondent, to make a finding of professional misconduct in relation to the matters alleged in the complaint. We accept the complainant's submissions regarding the characterisation of the conduct and the cases cited in support of those submissions. State Tribunals dealing with complaints against health practitioners have consistently found practitioners, including nurses, to have engaged in professional misconduct under the National Law when convicted of criminal offences, particularly those offences punishable by terms of imprisonment.[5]
2. Convictions for drug offences are particularly pertinent to the gravity of conduct which may amount to professional misconduct by a health practitioner. We are well satisfied of the gravity of the offending conduct in this case and find that the charges and convictions alone are sufficient to constitute professional misconduct. The conduct reflects on the reputation of the profession and may damage public confidence in it. The conduct is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.[6]
3. The trafficking offence was particularly serious and we accept the submission of the National Board that we should recognise its seriousness by reflecting on the potential penalty that could have been imposed rather than the actual penalty that was imposed by the criminal court. We also take into account the fact that the respondent was sentenced to an immediate period of imprisonment.
4. The further allegations on the disciplinary complaint are aggravating aspects of Mr Pannell's conduct. We consider Mr Panell's explanation for failing to reveal the criminal charges on his application for renewal of registration as disingenuous. His purported ignorance of his responsibilities in this respect is not an excuse. As a registered health practitioner he ought to have known his responsibilities in relation to notification of his criminal history (which included the criminal charges), when requested to provide that information on an application for renewal of his nursing registration.
5. We are similarly unimpressed with Mr Panell's explanation for failing to promptly notify the National Board about the charges within seven days of the charges being laid. We accept the submission of the National Board that the respondent's conduct in this respect lacks frankness and candour and is no excuse.
6. We consider his failure to promptly inform his employer of the charges and his conviction and sentence for those charges to be a further aggravating aspect of his behaviour. This conduct reflects poorly on him as a member of the nursing profession and in his employment as a nurse. We do not accept his explanation for his inability to promptly inform his employer after he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. There was nothing to stop a member of his family from notifying his employer earlier on his behalf and in this respect we note that his mother had held his power of attorney since December 2017 and was able to notify the employer of the conviction and penalty via email on 28 March 2018.
7. By way of factors in his favour we have taken into account that:
   • (a) at the time of the offending Mr Pannell suffered from low self-esteem issues which could lead to self-destructive behaviours;
   • (b) he has no prior disciplinary or criminal history;
   • (c) he has co-operated with the complainant since it began its investigation;
   • (d) he has been the subject of positive assessments from correctional authorities whilst on parole;
   • (e) he is engaging in counselling for his drug and alcohol issues and;
   • (f) he appeared before the Tribunal to face up to the allegations and accept a disciplinary sanction.
8. As to sanction, the Tribunal may caution or reprimand the respondent under s 196(2) of the National Law. The National Board did not invite us to impose this sanction. This may be because Mr Pannell is no longer registered and no longer seeking registration.
9. Other than that sanction the Tribunal observes that, as the respondent is no longer registered, it is only open to the Tribunal under s 196(2) of the National Law to:
   • (a) disqualify the person from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period, or
   • (b) prohibit the person either permanently or for a stated period from providing any health service or using a title or a specified title.
10. The National Board invites the Tribunal to impose a disqualification from seeking registration renewal for a period of six months.
11. The purpose of a disciplinary sanction is to protect the public and not to punish a practitioner in the sense in which punishment is administered pursuant to the criminal law.[7] Accordingly the factors in Mr Pannell's favour as referred to in paragraph 43 have some but limited weight in our consideration of the appropriate disciplinary sanction to be imposed.
12. It is well established in the case law that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public, maintain proper professional standards and to assure the public that proper standards are being maintained in the particular profession. A disciplinary sanction also assists in upholding public trust and confidence in the profession, bringing home to the practitioner the seriousness of their conduct, deterring the practitioner from any future departures from appropriate standards, deterring other members of the profession who might be minded to act in a similar way and imposing restrictions on the practitioner's right to practice so as to ensure that the public is protected.[8]
13. As to the appropriate sanction, we have considered some similar matters dealt with recently by the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal regarding registered nursing practitioners who had pleaded guilty to drug-related offences.[9] Those practitioners were all registered at the time of the disciplinary action and the periods of suspension from practice imposed on some of them varied between three to five months. We are mindful that other decisions regarding similar disciplinary action and sanctions are of some guidance but we should be careful, when determining the appropriate sanction in this matter, to consider the specific conduct of the respondent in the circumstances of this case.
14. We accept that a significant period of disqualification from seeking registration renewal is necessary to ensure that the standards of the profession are maintained in the eyes of the profession and of the public, noting that general deterrence is a significant factor relevant to a disciplinary sanction.

1. We disqualify the respondent from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of six months backdated to the date of the hearing. That period will expire on 3 March 2020.
2. At the end of that period of time Mr Pannell will need to satisfy the Board that he is a fit and proper person to be registered. The setting of this period of disqualification does not indicate at all that the Tribunal expects the respondent to be automatically re-registered at that time, should he apply to renew his registration.
3. The respondent is to pay the costs of and ancillary to this application as agreed with the applicant. Failing agreement the parties may apply to the Tribunal for an order as to costs to be determined by the Tribunal.
4. A separate order will be raised setting out the Tribunal's orders in full.

[3] R v Pannell District Court No. DCCRM-17-1988 Sentencing Remarks, Beazley J, p 3.

[4] Rajagopalan v Medical Board of South Australia (1998) SASC 6667; Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34.

[5] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Mundy [2012] SAHPT 5; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Frost [2018] SAHPT 14; Pharmacy Board of Australia v Thomas [2011] QCAT 637 at [29]; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Smith [2016] SAHPT 4.

[6] Section 5 of the National Law definition of professional misconduct.

[7] Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545.

[8] Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545 - 554; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Rogers [2017] SAHPT 21 at [5]; Physiotherapy Board of Australia v Adey [2017] SAHPT 3 at [36].

[9] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Mundy [2012] SAHPT 5; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Frost [2018] SAHPT 14; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Smith [2016] SAHPT 4.