(1) the Code of ethics for nurses: which was in effect from 1 July 2010 to 6 May 2013 (2010 Ethics Code) and which was succeeded by the Code of ethics for nurses: which was in effect from 7 May 2013 to 29 February 2018 (2013 Ethics Code)

(2) the Code of professional conduct for nurses: which was in effect from 1 July 2010 to 6 May 2013 (2010 Conduct Code) and which was succeed by the Code of professional conduct for nurses was in effect from 7 May 2013 to 29 February 2018 (2013 Conduct Code).

1. The 2013 versions of the Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics were relevantly identical in content to the 2010 versions. The latter were issued under the auspices of the National Board as the successor to the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council.
2. On 12 November 2014, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('AHPRA') was notified by the South Australian Police under s 146(1)(b) of the National Law that the respondent had been charged on 15 October 2014 with a number of sexual offences against a person under the age of 18 years between 2012 and 2014.
3. On 14 November 2014, AHPRA put the respondent on notice that it proposed to suspend his registration in light of the allegations and in light of the respondent's failure to notify AHPRA of the charges.
4. The respondent made a submission to AHPRA on 18 November 2014 denying the allegations and saying that he could not discuss the issues further because it would prejudice his defence.
5. On 19 November 2014, the Board decided not to suspend the respondent's registration but instead to take action under s 156(1) of the National Law by accepting an undertaking from the respondent that (among other things) he would not practice nursing 'on anyone under 18 years of age'.
6. The respondent was charged with 11 offences allegedly committed upon two child complainants.[1]
7. There were seven charges laid against the respondent in relation to his interactions with DP, who was a St John cadet. Those were:

(1) making a communication with the intention of procuring a person under 17 years to engage in or submit to sexual activity (Count 1).

(2) two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse while in a position of authority (Counts 2 and 7).

(3) while in a position of authority making a communication with the intention of procuring a person under 18 years to engage in or submit to sexual activity (Count 3).

(4) three counts of while in a position of authority and acting for a prurient purpose causing or inducing a person under 18 years to expose her body (Counts 4, 5 and 6).

1. There were also four charges in relation to a second cadet, EA:

(1) making a communication for a prurient purpose with the intention of making a child under 17 years amenable to sexual activity (Count 8).

(2) three counts of while in a position of authority, and acting for a prurient purpose, causing or inducing a person under the age of 18 years to expose her body (Counts 9, 10 and 11).

1. On 25 August 2017, after a trial, the respondent was found guilty of all the charges except for count 7 (relating to DP) and count 8 (relating to EA). The respondent lodged an appeal against his convictions.
2. Four months after the conviction, the Board suspended the respondent's registration under s 156(1) of the National Law, on 5 January 2018.
3. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the respondent's appeal in June 2018.[2]
4. On 9 April 2019, the Board filed a complaint referring certain matters to the former South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal. The proceedings were transferred to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal with effect from 9 August 2019 as a result of a conferral of the jurisdiction on SACAT and from that date the matter proceeded as if it had been commenced in SACAT pursuant to s 112(4) of the Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Act 2019 (SA).
5. The Tribunal conducted directions hearings on 11 September 2019, 20 November 2019 and 4 February 2020, with a conference being held on 9 December 2019, and the parties elected, on 20 March 2020, to proceed on the basis of written submissions without an oral hearing.

1. The conduct was described in the sentencing remarks of the court that sentenced the respondent on 3 November 2017. It is not described in detail in this decision because the parties agreed how the conduct would be described. However, the failure to describe the conduct more fully, and in particular the failure to describe the impact of the conduct on the young women who were victims of the respondent's behaviour, does not indicate that the Tribunal has not made itself aware of that impact, or that it does not recognise the consequences of the conduct. That impact is significant insofar as it assists the Tribunal to recognise the extent of the alleged departure from acceptable standards of conduct for nurses that the offending entailed.
2. At the time of the conduct that is the subject of these proceedings, the respondent was an event planner in head office with St John and held the rank of State Staff Officer (Grade 4). He was in a position of authority over DP and EA in the sense entailed by the offences for which he was convicted.
3. DP was a volunteer with St John and was 16 years old when the conduct commenced and 17 when it concluded.
4. In April and August 2012, the respondent and DP were engaged in Facebook conversations of a sexual nature. Later in August 2012, the respondent and DP met up and on that occasion there was sexual activity, being the occasion on which the respondent inserted his fingers into her vagina. In October 2012, there was a further sexual conversation between the two on Facebook and the respondent asked DP to take and send to him photographs of her body, which she did.
5. EA was a 17 year old volunteer with St John at the time of the conduct involving her.
6. In March 2013, the respondent and EA engaged in Facebook conversations and the respondent asked EA to take and send him photographs of her body, which she did.
7. The specific instances of conduct that this Tribunal has considered for the purposes of making disciplinary orders are as follows:
   • The first instance of agreed conduct was that on about 27 August 2012, the respondent had sexual intercourse with DP at Clovelly Park when she was under 18 years of age and he was in a position of authority over her.
   • The second instance of agreed conduct occurred on 23-24 April 2012, when the respondent engaged in communications with DP in Adelaide with the intention of procuring her to engage in or submit to sexual activity when she was under 17 years of age.
   • The third instance of agreed conduct was that on 5 August 2012, the respondent engaged in communications with DP with the intention of procuring her to engage in or submit to sexual activity when she was under 18 years of age and he was in a position of authority over her.
   • The fourth instance of agreed conduct was that on 9-10 October 2012, the respondent caused or induced DP to expose her body three times when she was under 18 years of age and he was in a position of authority over her and acting for a prurient purpose.
   • The fifth instance of agreed conduct occurred on 10 March 2013, when the respondent caused or induced EA to expose her body three times when she was under 18 years of age and he was in a position of authority over her and acting for a prurient purpose.
   • The sixth instance of agreed conduct occurred on or about 9 November 2013, when the respondent had sexual intercourse with DP at a communications centre at Camden Park operated by St John Ambulance Australia SA Inc.
   • The seventh instance of agreed conduct occurred between 27 March 2012 and 3 November 2012, when the respondent engaged in lewd, sexually explicit or otherwise improper and/or unprofessional Facebook communications with DP when she was under 18 years of age and he was in a position of authority over her.
8. The eighth, ninth and tenth instances of agreed conduct related to the dealings that the respondent had with the Board and the AHPRA about the first to seventh instances of conduct. The eighth related to the respondent's failure to inform the Board of the charges. The ninth instance related to the respondent's failure to inform the Board of the convictions. The tenth instance of agreed conduct occurred when, on or about 18 November 2014, the respondent sent a letter to AHPRA making misleading statements about the charges.
9. After considering the respondent's letter containing the misleading statements, the Board decided not to suspend the respondent's registration and to accept an undertaking from him instead.

1. Professional misconduct under the National Law includes 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.
2. The first to seventh instances of conduct were crimes. The victims were minors. The conduct was completely antithetical to conduct befitting a nurse. It constituted a gross breach of trust and it occurred over a period of time during which the respondent had ample opportunity to consider the nature and effect of his conduct.
3. Inappropriate sexual conduct unrelated to a nurse's professional duties may clearly amount to professional misconduct: Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Mark Dunnett [2018] SAHPT 5. If the conduct is sufficiently disgraceful, immoral or outrageous, it does not matter that the conduct occurs outside the course of the practitioner's work: Reyes v Dental Board of South Australia [2002] SASC 239.
4. The eighth to tenth instances of conduct entailed contraventions of the respondent's obligations under the National Law. They entailed a lack of honesty and a failure to take responsibility for the crimes at the time that they were detected.
5. All of the instances of conduct entailed breaches of the code of conduct to which the respondent was subject.
6. The parties agreed and the Tribunal finds that the respondent was subject to the Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses in Australia 2010 and 2013 which is relevantly the same. That code contains various statements of appropriate conduct for nurses including, relevantly, the following:

Conduct Statement 2

Nurses practice in accordance with the standards of the profession and broader health system.

1. The parties agree and the Tribunal finds that the respondent's conduct fell well below the standards of conduct appropriate for the nursing profession.
2. The code also contains a statement regarding observance of laws specific to nursing and the general law, as follows.

Conduct Statement 3

Nurses practice and conduct themselves in accordance with laws relevant to the profession and practice of nursing.

1. The parties agree and the Tribunal finds that the respondent's conduct was not in accordance with the laws relevant to the profession and the practice of nursing. The code requires nurses to comply with the general laws as well as those specific to nursing. The respondent's conduct (instances 1 - 7 inclusive) constituted offences against the criminal law.
2. The code also contains Conduct Statement 9 which provides:

Nurses maintain and build on the community's trust and confidence in the nursing profession.

1. The parties agree and the Tribunal finds that the respondent's conduct contravened this obligation. The respondent's conduct was liable to erode the community's trust and confidence in the nursing profession.
2. When the respondent failed to give the Board notice within seven days of being charged on 15 October 2014 with offences under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA) 1935 that were punishable by 12 months imprisonment, the parties agree and the Tribunal finds that he contravened ss 130(1) and 130(3)(a)(i) of the National Law. That conduct also constituted a breach of the Conduct Statements 2, 3 and 9 of the Conduct Code 2013.
3. By failing to advise the Board of the Court's finding that he was guilty of the criminal offences, the parties agree and the Tribunal finds that the respondent contravened s 130(1) and s 130(3)(a)(ii) of the National Law. The failure also constituted a breach of the Conduct Statements 2, 3 and 9 of the 2013 Conduct Code.
4. When the respondent wrote to the Board in November 2014, his letter contained misleading statements and in so doing he breached Conduct Statements 2 and 9 of the 2013 Conduct Code.
5. The Tribunal finds that the respondent's conduct described in the first to tenth instances inclusive constitutes professional misconduct for the purposes of s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law.
6. The respondent's submissions state, and the Tribunal accepts, that his record as a nurse was unblemished and "without complaint, reprimand or incident" prior to these events. The Tribunal accepts that the consequences of these events have been life-changing. The respondent submits and the Tribunal accepts that he has been significantly penalized in the criminal law process. As indicated, the purpose of these proceedings is not to penalize the respondent further but to protect the public. The respondent submitted, and the Tribunal accepts, that he has lost a fulfilling career as a trauma nurse.
7. The Tribunal also observes that the respondent's submissions disclose that the respondent has not demonstrated acceptance of his guilt. He submitted that he "wished to get on with his life". He submitted that he "had lost everything due to the prosecution and the finding of his guilt including a house, life savings, a career which [he] loved and the respect of people." In relation to the failure to report the charges, he says that in retrospect he should have maintained his right to silence. The respondent submitted that he "felt at the time that he should make a positive statement of his innocence but says based on findings of the Court and the statements previously made by him the statements he made to the Board were false and misleading." These submissions, and the failure to acknowledge the impact of the victims of the relationship between the behaviour and the proper practice of nursing, suggest a lack of insight on the part of the respondent into the qualities required of a nurse and the departure of his conduct from the standards of conduct to which he was obliged to attain.
8. The respondent submitted that "but for the offending [he would have] provided the South Australian Health system with an excellent well-qualified nurse". The Tribunal is not satisfied of this. A nurse must demonstrate qualities of character, demonstrated through conduct, as well as technical ability and the conduct for which this Tribunal is making orders indicates that the respondent lacks the qualities of character required for nursing.

1. The purpose of the Tribunal's orders is to protect the public and to maintain proper professional standards and reassures the public that certain conduct is not acceptable professional conduct: Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545.
2. The Tribunal's predecessor, the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal, set out seven purposes served by orders:[3]

The Tribunal notes that the imposition of disciplinary action on a health practitioner is to protect the public. As has been noted in previous decisions, the imposition of discipline may serve one or all of the following purposes:

preventing practitioners who are unfit to practice from practising;

securing maintenance of professional standards;

assuring members of the public and the profession that appropriate standards are being maintained and that professional misconduct (or unprofessional conduct) will not be tolerated;

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 practise so as to ensure that the public is protected.

1. This Tribunal adopts those purposes as an appropriate description of the range of purposes to which disciplinary orders may be put.
2. The respondent has not worked as a nurse since November 2014. The respondent has surrendered his registration to the Board. If he had not done so, the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration under s 196(2)(e) of the National Law in response to this application. The Tribunal finds that the agreed conduct as a whole is inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a nurse.
3. The parties agree and the Tribunal considers that the following orders are appropriate in respect of the respondent:

(1) The respondent is reprimanded in the strongest terms.

(2) The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of 8 years from 9 April 2019.

(a) permanently prohibited from providing any health service falling within the scope of the definition of 'child-related work' in s 64(1) of the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA); and

(b) prohibited from providing any other health service defined in s 5 of the National Law for a period of 8 years from 9 April 2019 or until he re-gains registration as a health practitioner (whichever happens later), at which time the relevant registration authority should consider the further continuation of this prohibition order or imposing any conditions on the Respondent's registration that it may consider appropriate.

1. The Tribunal orders that the respondent pay the Board's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, in an amount to be agreed or adjudicated by the Tribunal.

[1] R v Symons [2017] SADC 94.

[2] R v Symons [2018] SASCFC 48.

[3] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Brenda Moyle [2018] SAHPT 8 at [32].