Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Stumer [2025] QCAT 253

The conduct that is the subject of the referral

• [6] The conduct that brings her before the Tribunal relates to guilty pleas for criminal conduct. The particulars are set out in the notice of allegations annexed to the referral. In broad terms, between 7 March 2021 and 12 September 2023, the respondent pleaded guilty to 64 charges, which were comprised of:

(a) One count of contravening order about device information from digital device pursuant to s 205A(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld);

(b) Four drug-related offences, being:

(i) one count of possess utensils or pipes that had been used pursuant to s 10(2)(b) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) ('Drugs Misuse Act');

(ii) one count of possess property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence pursuant to s 10A(1)(b) of the Drugs Misuse Act;

(iii) one count of possess property suspected of being acquired for the purpose of committing a drug offence pursuant to s 10A(1)(b) of the Drugs Misuse Act; and

(iv) one count of possess utensils or pipes for use pursuant to s 10(2)(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act.

(c) 56 counts of breach of bail condition pursuant to s 29(1) of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld), the majority of which related to contact with her former partner and co-accused in the drug related offences;

(d) Two driving offences, being:

(i) one count of driving over general alcohol limit but not over middle alcohol limit pursuant to s 79(2)(a) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) ('TORUM Act'); and

(ii) one count of keeping to the left of the two continuous dividing lines pursuant to s 132(2) of the TORUM Act.

(e) One count of replacement of lost or stolen card pursuant to s 347 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

• [7] On 21 December 2023, she appeared before the Supreme Court of Queensland for breach of a suspended sentence.
• [8] Naturally, this conduct is inconsistent with the Board's Code of Conduct for Nurses and Code of Ethics for Nurses. It would be very unusual if convictions and pleas of guilty, such as the ones presently before the Tribunal, would not be considered to be professional misconduct.
• [9] Allegation two is that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct by failing to notify the Board in writing within seven days of becoming aware of a 'relevant event'[1] on twelve occasions, particulars of which are set out in the notice of allegations annexed to the referral.
• [10] Allegation three is that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct by failing to notify the Board in writing within seven days of becoming aware of a 'relevant event'[2] on two occasions, particulars of which are set out in the notice of allegations annexed to the referral.
• [11] Allegation four relates to the respondent providing false and/or misleading information, particulars of which are set out in the notice of allegations annexed to the referral but in brief, through her legal representatives, she made submissions on 28 June 2021 that:

(a) she denies the Police allegations and will be vigorously defending the charges;

(b) she has been caught up in the matter that was originally solely directed only at her then-partner and co-accused, Mr Davidson;

(c) she has had no contact with Mr Davidson since his arrest on 20 May 2021.

• [12] In respect of the last matter, there is clear evidence that a large number of her pleas of guilty relate to her beach of the bail conditions by contacting Mr Davidson as it was a condition of her bail that she not do so.
• [13] On 29 June 2021, that is the following day, she corrected that submission. Her legal representatives filed an addendum to the original submission which stated:

[The respondent] advises that she provided a submission to Ahpra stating that she was no longer in contact with Mr Davidson. [The respondent] advises that this was misleading and that she was having telephone contact with him.

• [14] During the course of investigations, the Board received further evidence that the original submission contained false and/or misleading information to the effect that she does not use illicit substances, which is contrary to her guilty plea and a number of her breaches of bail. She told the Police, and the Court considered, that she was withdrawing from a very significant methamphetamine addiction.
• [15] Another false and/or misleading submission was that there were no allegations of wrongdoing against the respondent and the first she knew of the allegations was at the same time as the police's search of the property on 20 May 2021, however she pleaded guilty to all of the charges of 20 May 2021 that were proceeded with.
• [16] Allegation five relates to the provision of a false declaration when applying to renew her registration on 6 March 2024. The respondent falsely declared that there had been no changes to her criminal history.

• [17] On 18 December 2024, the Board filed the disciplinary referral in the Tribunal. When the respondent last applied to renew her registration on 6 March 2024, she provided to the Board her residential and mailing address, phone number and email address. On 20 December 2024, the Board emailed the respondent and delivered by courier a copy of the referral to the respective addresses provided in her renewal application.
• [18] On 28 January 2025, the Tribunal gave the parties notice that it had listed the matter for a directions hearing on 11 February 2025. On 6 February 2025, the Board's solicitors emailed the Tribunal, copying in the respondent, attaching a copy of the timetabling directions it was going to seek at the upcoming directions hearing. The respondent failed to appear at the directions hearing and the Tribunal attempted to call her without success.
• [19] The Tribunal listed the matter for another directions hearing on 25 March 2025. The respondent failed to attend. The Tribunal called the respondent's mobile number, a female voice answered and identified herself as 'Tyana'. When she was told it was the Tribunal calling, she hung up.
• [20] It is clear from the procedural history that the respondent has not engaged with the Board's investigation nor cooperated throughout the proceedings before the Tribunal.
• [21] In addition, there is evidence that a solicitor for the Board, Ms Penfold, spoke to the respondent on 9 July 2025, not so long ago. Ms Penfold identified herself as a lawyer from Norton Rose Fulbright and the respondent confirmed to Ms Penfold that she was aware of the proceedings and said words to the effect of:[3]

(a) 'this all happened years ago';

(b) 'is this just regarding them suspending my registration or whatever because I am okay with that';

(c) 'I don't want to pursue that'; and

(d) 'what is the worst that can happen'.

• [22] Later during the conversation, the respondent said words to the effect of:[4]

(a) 'this was to do with criminal behaviour'; and

(b) 'does the Board have a record of the charges that were actually progressed? Because ninety percent of them were dropped. Do they know that?'

• [23] The latter comment is concerning for two reasons. Firstly, it shows a lack of insight into the fact that her criminal behaviour and convictions bring the profession into disrepute. Secondly, that statement is not true. Very few charges were withdrawn from the large number of charges to which she pleaded guilty to; certainly not ninety percent.

• [24] The Tribunal must consider how to characterise the conduct. Looking at the conduct globally, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the respondent's behaviour amounts to professional misconduct.
• [25] The second matter is sanction. The Board has made submissions in respect of sanction and has provided some comparable cases and in some instances, those comparable cases are very close, factually, to this matter (which is not always the case). Comparable cases are guidelines and are useful in setting the parameters of an appropriate sanction. The case which was most helpful is Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v JHJ [2025] QCAT 40, facts of which are set out in applicant's submissions.
• [26] It is well established that disciplinary proceedings and any sanction imposed by the Tribunal must be protective not punitive. Some of the considerations that the Tribunal takes into account are:

(a) securing the maintenance of proper professional standards;

(b) maintaining public confidence in the profession by assuring members of the public and the profession that appropriate standards are being maintained and professional misconduct will not be tolerated;

(c) bringing home to the practitioner the seriousness of the conduct;

(d) specific deterrence - deterring the practitioner from any future departures from the requisite professional standards; and

(e) general deterrence - deterring other members of the profession that may be minded to act in a similar way.

• [27] It is also appropriate to take into account, where there is evidence available, attempts at rehabilitation, attempts at further education relating to ethics and any indications of insight or remorse. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in relation to whether the respondent has made attempts to rehabilitate or educate herself. The Tribunal has already commented on the respondent's lack of insight and there is otherwise no evidence regarding the respondent's remorse, if any.
• [28] Not only did the respondent fail to give notice of a relevant event but she compounded that by giving false and misleading information to the Board.
• [29] The respondent has shown disregard for the disciplinary proceedings in this Tribunal by failing to engage.
• [30] Apart from the comment to the Board's solicitors, there is no indication of the respondent's intentions with respect to returning to the practice of nursing.
• [31] The Tribunal has also considered that, should the respondent seek to become registered as a nurse again, she will need to overcome recency of practice requirements which will be a hurdle.
• [32] Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that:
  1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct as defined by subparagraph (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law.
  2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.
  3. Pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of two (2) years.
  4. There be no order as to costs.

[1] As defined in s 130 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).

[3] Annexure EP20 to the Affidavit of Elleni Mae Wauchope Penfold, affirmed on 25 July 2025.