Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v PNA [2025] QCAT 360

The conduct that is the subject of the referral

• [3] The conduct that brings the respondent before the Tribunal involves four allegations and can be summarised as follows:

(a) On 11 May 2022, the respondent was found guilty of an offence pursuant to section 79(1F)(c) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) ('TORUM Act') for being in charge of a motor vehicle when over the middle alcohol limit, but not over the high alcohol limit.

(b) On 15 July 2022, the respondent was found guilty of an offence under section 177(2)(b) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ('DFVP Act') for contravening a domestic violence order in place to protect her former de facto spouse.

(c) On 12 September 2022, the respondent was found guilty of:

(i) an offence under section 177(2) of the DFVP Act for contravening a domestic violence order in place to protect the respondent's former husband;

(ii) an offence under section 79(1)(a) of the TORUM Act for driving a vehicle under the influence of liquor; and

(iii) an offence under section 91W(1)(A) of the TORUM Act for driving a motor vehicle that was not fitted with a prescribed interlock.

(d) On 5 January 2023, the respondent was found guilty of an offence pursuant to 177(2) of the DFVP Act for contravening a domestic violence order in place to protect her former de facto spouse.

• [4] It should be noted that all of those matters were dealt with on the basis of the respondent pleading guilty to the charges laid against her. As a result, the respondent received the following penalties:

(a) In respect of the conduct comprising allegation 1, the respondent's driver's licence was disqualified for three months.

(b) In respect of the conduct comprising allegation 2, the respondent was fined $1,000 and no conviction was recorded.

(c) In respect of the conduct comprising allegation 3, as was the case concerning allegation 2, it, among other things, involved a breach of an existing domestic violence order. The respondent was ordered to:

(i) pay a fine of $500 with respect to the contravention of the domestic violence order with no conviction recorded;

(ii) pay a fine of $1,000 and be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of six months with a conviction recorded; and

(iii) pay a fine of $500 and be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of three months with a conviction recorded.

(d) In respect of the conduct comprising allegation 4, the respondent was sentenced to eight months' probation with a number of conditions, one of which, relevantly, required the respondent, in the words of the learned sentencing magistrate, to:[1]

... complete any courses or counselling, which may well involve alcohol education, domestic violence education - so if they say you have to complete a certain course of attend counselling, you will have to do that.

• [5] The respondent, of course, agreed to all of the conditions imposed and no conviction was recorded.

• [6] Aggravating features of allegations 2, 3 and 4 are that they all involved breaches of court orders, and particularly in respect of one of the allegations of domestic violence, involved quite serious acts of violence. The third matter which brought the respondent before the Court was described as including what was 'probably a fairly minor push by the sound of it'[2] and it would appear that alcohol was involved in many of the instances.
• [7] As a consequence of the conduct that brings the respondent before this Tribunal, the applicant sought the following findings and orders:[3]

(a) An individual finding under s 196(1)(b) of the National Law in relation to each allegation that:

(i) with respect to allegation 1, the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct and/or in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct;

(ii) with respect to allegation 2, the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;

(iii) with respect to allegation 3, the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct; and

(iv) with respect to allegation 4, the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

(b) Alternatively, a global finding under section 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct under subparagraphs (a) and/or (c) of the definition of that term.

(c) The following determinations under section 196 of the National Law:

(i) the respondent be reprimanded pursuant to section 196(2)(a);

(ii) the respondent's registration be cancelled pursuant to section 196(2)(e); and

(iii) the respondent be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of six months pursuant to section 196(4)(a).

• [8] As the respondent had not put in issue any of the relevant fact, matters, and circumstances, save for one matter that will be addressed below, it was decided that this matter was capable of being dealt with on the papers. The respondent's registration as a nurse was due to expire on 31 May 2025, and if not renewed, would lapse on 30 June 2025.
• [9] On 12 August 2025, solicitors for the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal stating as follows:

The applicant in this matter has not received any communication from the respondent to indicate that she intends to engage in these proceedings. In light of this, we would be grateful if you could confirm whether this matter will be listed for determination on the papers, without the parties filing further materials.

...

The cessation of the respondent's registration means that the Tribunal cannot exercise its powers under [section] 196(2)(e) of the [National Law] to cancel the respondent's registration. The applicant's submissions are otherwise unaffected.

• [10] On 19 August 2025, the respondent emailed the Tribunal, but not the applicant, advising that she 'did indeed send the forms on the due date. My cancelled registration is not legal. I can forward the email as proof/evidence'. The Tribunal forwarded that information to the applicant's solicitors (copying in the respondent). On 25 August 2025, the applicant's solicitors emailed the Tribunal (copying in the respondent) attaching a letter. By way of that correspondence, the applicant's solicitors relevantly advised the Tribunal:

We are instructed that on 21 August 2025, the respondent's registration as a registered nurse was reinstated, subject to conditions, including the respondent must not practise as a registered nurse. The respondent's registration number, together with the conditions on her registration, are visible on the public Register of Practitioners under the respondent's name.

The respondent's application for a renewal of her registration currently remains under consideration by the applicant. In accordance with section 108(1) of the [National Law], the respondent's current nursing registration continues to be valid until the applicant has made a final determination with respect to her application.

...

[Section] 196(2)(e) of the [National Law] provides that, if a responsible tribunal makes a finding under [section] 196(1)(b), then it may decide to cancel the practitioner's registration. Under [section] 196(4), the responsible tribunal may also disqualify the practitioner from applying for registration for a specified period if it decides to cancel the registration or if the respondent does not hold registration.

At present, the respondent remains registered. It is therefore open to the Tribunal to exercise its power under paragraph 196(2)(e) to cancel the registration and to impose a disqualification period under subsection 196(4).

• [11] The relevant authority then advised the respondent as follows:

Your application for renewal was withdrawn in error. Unfortunately, your response to our request for further information was misfiled because you did not respond to the email address advised (sic). I apologise for any issues caused.

• [12] In Craig v Medical Board of Australia [2001] SASC 169, Chief Justice Doyle, as he then was, relevantly observed:[4]

The purpose of a disciplinary sanction is to protect the public, not to punish a practitioner in the sense in which punishment is administered pursuant to the criminal law. A disciplinary tribunal protects the public by making orders which will prevent persons who are unfit to practise from practising, or by making orders that will secure the maintenance of proper professional standards. A disciplinary tribunal will also consider the protection of the public, and of the relevant profession, by making orders which will assure the public that appropriate standards are being maintained within the relevant profession.

• [13] In respect of the repetitious incidents of violence in breach of court orders, the observations made in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Thomas[5] cited with approval in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Hogan [2018] TASHPT 3 at [48] are apposite:

... multiple convictions for assault against a practitioner's partner is a very serious matter. The public is entitled to be protected against further similar conduct that, even though it did not occur in the practice of nursing, may reveal a defect in the respondent's character and therefore impact on the trust and confidence of his patients and/or fellow health practitioners in his practice of nursing.

• [14] As serious as the conduct of the respondent is in this case, there are a number of matters which are relevant to determining that the respondent's registration ought not be cancelled. Firstly, the earliest incident of untoward conduct occurred some three years and eight months ago, and the most recent, some two years and eight months ago. The Tribunal has not been taken to any material which would indicate that since that time the respondent has been involved in any further untoward conduct.
• [15] Secondly, the respondent's registration is currently subject to a condition that she must not practise as a registered nurse. That condition provides a significant safety net insofar as the safety of the public is concerned.
• [16] Thirdly, none of the conduct, as serious as it was and being entirely inconsistent with the public's expectations of what would be expected of a registered nurse, it did not involve conduct that directly related to her performance in that profession.
• [17] Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, the Tribunal is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to cancel the respondent's registration when that matter is currently under consideration by the relevant authority, particularly in circumstances where that authority expressly said:

Your application for renewal remains under assessment and once it is assigned to a case officer, they will be in contact if they require any further information. Your registration remains in force whilst your renewal remains under assessment.

• [18] In all the circumstances, it must be said with some reservation that it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to, in effect, cut across and negate that authority's obligation to consider the respondent's ongoing registration based on all the relevant material. Such material might include evidence as to the respondent's response to dealing with her alcohol issues and/or domestic violence issues. Such material may or may not exist, but if it does, it is not currently before the Tribunal.
• [19] That said, though, at the very least, the conduct of the respondent is entirely inconsistent with what the public would expect of a registered nurse and warrants a reprimand. In this regard, it needs to be borne in mind that a reprimand is by no means a mere slap on the wrist. As has been observed on numerous occasions, a reprimand is a serious form of censure and condemnation combined with a finding of professional misconduct. It is not a trivial penalty in itself as it represents a public denouncement of a practitioner's conduct, which is placed on that practitioner's record.

• [20] Accordingly, the findings and orders of the Tribunal are as follows:
  1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

1. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.

• [21] The Tribunal would also observe, without making any particular findings or orders one way or the other that, at the very least, until the relevant authority determines otherwise, if the respondent's registration is to remain on foot, it should be subject to the existing conditions.

[1] Transcript of Proceedings, R v PNA (Magistrates Court, A/Magistrate Muirhead, January 2023) 1-2 ll 28-30.

[3] Applicant's Submissions, filed in the Tribunal 13 May 2025, 14 [1.10].

[4] Craig v Medical Board of Australia [2001] SASC 169, 11 [41].

[5] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Thomas (State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia, VR89/2017).