On 28 November 2024, the Tribunal made the following order:

Under section 146(4)(b) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), VCAT directs that no person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal representatives may inspect the VCAT file.

1. On or about 31 December 2021, Mr Thompson engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 in that, he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria to charges:

a) one count of theft pursuant to section 74 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); > > b) one count of possession of a controlled weapon under section 6(1) of the Controlled Weapons Act 1990 (Vic); > > c) one count of possession of a prohibited weapon under section 5AA of the Controlled Weapons Act 1990 (Vic) Act; > > d) one count of contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order under section 123(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic); > > e) two counts of contravening a condition of bail under section 30A of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic); > > f) one count of harassing a witness under section 52A of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic); > > g) one count of persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order under section 125(1) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic); > > h) one count of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail;

in relation to which he was found guilty without conviction and sentenced to an 18-month Community Corrections Order.

1. On 30 July 2021, 11 August 2021 and 7 January 2022, Mr Thompson engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (b) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 ('National Law'), in that, Mr Thompson contravened section 130(1) of the National Law by failing to notify the Board in writing within 7 days that a relevant event occurred, being that he was criminally charged.

Pursuant to the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic), the Tribunal orders:

1. Under section 196(2)(a) of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic), Jeremy Thompson is reprimanded.
2. Under section 196(4)(a) of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic), Jeremy Thompson is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of two years from the date of this order.

Ms A Tyshing, solicitor, Gadens Lawyers, and Mr K Robson, Ahpra

1. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia ('the Board') has referred to the Tribunal allegations about the respondent nurse, Mr Jeremy Thompson ('Mr Thompson' or 'the respondent'), under section 193 of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic) ('the National Law'). The allegations are that Mr Thompson was found guilty of criminal offences relating to theft, possession of a controlled weapon and a prohibited weapon, contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order ('FVIO'), contravening a condition of bail, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, harassing a witness and persistent contravention of a FVIO ('Allegation 1'). It is also alleged that Mr Thompson failed to notify the Board in writing of the criminal charges within 7 days ('Allegation 2').
2. Upon consideration of the evidence and the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Tribunal finds that the facts alleged in Allegation 1 and the particulars to that allegation are proven. In relation to Allegation 2, the Tribunal finds that the facts in relation to the failure to report the criminal charges are proven.
3. The Tribunal finds that the proven conduct described in Allegation 1 is professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct contained in section 5 of the National Law. The Tribunal finds that the proven conduct described in Allegation 2 is professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (b) of the definition of professional misconduct contained in section 5 of the National Law. The Tribunal is satisfied that the appropriate determination in this matter is that Mr Thompson is reprimanded and he is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of two years.

1. Following a notification from Victoria Police to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('Ahpra') on 7 March 2022 that Mr Thompson had been charged and found guilty by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria ('Magistrates' Court'), the Board decided on 10 March 2022 to commence an investigation of the notification.
2. On 26 November 2024, the Board made a referral to the Tribunal regarding Mr Thompson and attached a Notice of Allegations ('the NOA').[1]
3. On 25 March 2025, pursuant to directions made by the Tribunal, the parties filed a joint electronic Tribunal Book. An updated Tribunal Book was filed on 7 November 2025.
4. The matter came on for hearing before the Tribunal on 24 November 2025. Mr Thompson had previously indicated that he did not intend to participate in the hearing, however, he did appear at the hearing and made submissions.
5. The parties each made oral submissions and the Board relied upon a written outline, and upon various documents in the Tribunal Book, including criminal charge sheets, extracts from orders, a criminal history document, transcript of Magistrates' Court hearings, the FVIOs, the police briefs and Mr Thompson's earlier written submissions to the Board.
6. The following are the Tribunal's reasons.

1. Mr Thompson was first registered as a nurse in Australia on 6 January 1997. Mr Thompson worked as a nurse in Geelong and at a major metropolitan hospital in Melbourne. He had worked at a high level in intensive care nursing.
2. None of the allegations relate to his conduct while working or relate directly to his clinic role.
3. On 22 July 2021, Mr Thompson was arrested and charged with the following offences:
   1. One count of theft under section 74 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ('Crimes Act');
   2. Two counts of possession of a controlled weapon under section 6(1) of the Controlled Weapons Act 1990 (Vic) ('CW Act');
   3. Two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon under section 5AA of the CE Act;
   4. Contravening a FVIO under section 123(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) ('Family Violence Act');
   5. Stalking under section 21A(1) of the Crimes Act.
4. Also on 22 July 2021, Mr Thompson signed a bail undertaking, which required him not to commit family violence and not to communicate with the complainant by telephone, text message or email.
5. On 3 August 2021, Mr Thompson was arrested and charged with the following offences:
   1. Contravening a FVIO under section 123(2) of the Family Violence Act;
   2. Contravening a condition of bail under section 30A of the Bail Act 1977;
   3. Harassing a witness under section 52A of the Summary Offences Act;
6. On 6 August 2021, the FIVO was varied to a full order.
7. On 30 December 2021, Mr Thompson was arrested and charged with the following offences:
   1. Six counts of contravening a FVIO under section 123(2) of the Family Violence Act;
   2. Persistent contravention of a FVIO under section 125(1) of the Family Violence Act.
8. On 31 December 2021, Mr Thompson pleaded guilty to amended and consolidated charges as follows:
   1. one count of theft pursuant to 74 of the Crimes Act;
   2. one count of possession of a controlled weapon under s 6(1) of the CW Act;
   3. one count of possession of a prohibited weapon under s 5AA of the CW Act;
   4. one count of contravening a FVIO;
   5. one count of harassing a witness;
   6. one count of persistent contravention of a FVIO;
   7. one count of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail; and
   8. two counts of contravening a condition of bail.
9. The Magistrates' Court made findings of guilt and, without conviction, imposed a Community Corrections Order ('CCO') of 18 months. The CCO included conditions for Mr Thompson to perform 100 hours of community work, undertake a mental health assessment and a Men's Behaviour Change Programme. The Tribunal notes that the amended and consolidated charges included at least one charge from each of the sets of charges laid on 22 July 2021, 3 August 2021 and 30 December 2021.

1. Section 5 of the National Law provides that professional misconduct of a registered 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; and

(b) more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(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. Section 5 of the National Law also provides that unprofessional conduct means:

... professional conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of the health practitioner by the public or the practitioner's professional peers, and includes -

(a) a contravention by the practitioner of this Law, whether or not the practitioner has been prosecuted for, or convicted of, an offence in relation to the contravention; and

(b) ...

(c) the conviction of the practitioner for an offence under another Act, the nature of which may affect the practitioner's suitability to continue to practise the profession;

1. Section 130 of the National Law relevantly provides:

(1) A registered health practitioner or student must, within 7 days after becoming aware that a relevant event has occurred in relation to the practitioner or student, give the National Board established for the practitioner's or student's health profession written notice of the event.

...

(3) In this section-

"relevant event", in relation to a registered health practitioner, means

(a) the practitioner is charged with

...

(ii) an offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more, whether in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere; or

1. Section 193 of the National Law relevantly provides:

(1) Subject to section 193A, a National Board must refer a matter about a registered health practitioner or student to a responsible tribunal if -

• (I) for a registered health practitioner, the Board reasonably believes, based on a notification or for any other reason, the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct; or
• (II) for a registered health practitioner or student, a panel established by the Board requires the Board to refer the matter to a responsible tribunal

(1) After hearing a matter about a registered health practitioner, a responsible tribunal may decide -

(a) the practitioner has no case to answer and no further action is to be taken in relation to the matter; or

(b) one or more of the following -

(i) the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional performance;

(ii) the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct;

(iii) the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;

(iv) the practitioner has an impairment;

(v) the practitioner's registration was improperly obtained because the practitioner or someone else gave the National Board established for the practitioner's health profession information or a document that was false or misleading in a material particular; or

(2) If a responsible tribunal makes a decision referred to in subsection (1) (b), the tribunal may decide to do one or more of the following -

(a) caution or reprimand the practitioner;

(b) impose a condition on the practitioner's registration, including, for example -

(i) a condition requiring the practitioner to complete specified further education or training, or to undergo counselling, within a specified period; or

(ii) a condition requiring the practitioner to undertake a specified period of supervised practice; or

(iii) a condition requiring the practitioner to do, or refrain from doing, something in connection with the practitioner's practice; or

(iv) a condition requiring the practitioner to manage the practitioner's practice in a specified way; or

(v) a condition requiring the practitioner to report to a specified person at specified times about the practitioner's practice; or

(vi) a condition requiring the practitioner not to employ, engage or recommend a specified person, or class of persons,

(c) require the practitioner to pay a fine of not more than $30,000 to the National Board that registers the practitioner;

(d) suspend the practitioner's registration for a specified period;

(e) cancel the practitioner's registration.

(3) If the responsible tribunal decides to impose a condition on the practitioner's registration, the tribunal must also decide a review period for the condition.

(4) If the tribunal decides to cancel a person's registration under this Law or the person does not hold registration under this Law, the tribunal may also decide 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 doing either or both of the following

(i) providing any health service or a specified health service;

(ii) using any title or a specified title; or

(c) impose restrictions, either permanently or for a stated period, on the provision of any health service or a specified health service by the person.

1. VCAT is a responsible tribunal for the purpose of the National Law.
2. In the circumstances where serious allegations are made against a party, the Briginshaw standard applies to the state of satisfaction required in making adverse findings regarding these allegations. In Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) CLR 336 at 362, Dixon J discussed the principle as follows:

The seriousness of the allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters "reasonable satisfaction" should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.

1. The principle goes to the clarity and quality of the evidence and would require excluding or giving little weight to hearsay evidence, conclusions of fact and opinion without basis, as they are inexact proofs, indefinite testimony and/or indirect inferences. The evidence of the serious allegations against Mr Thompson is considered in light of this principle.

1. Allegation 1 contained in the NOA was as follows (omitting the Particulars to the Allegation):

That Mr Thompson engaged in:

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law;

and/or

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law in that:

(i) on 22 July 2021, he was charged with:

(A) one count of theft pursuant to s 74 of the Crimes Act;

(B) two counts of possession of a controlled weapon under s 6(1) of the Controlled Weapons Act;

(C) two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon under s 5AA of the Controlled Weapons Act;

(D) contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order (FVIO) under s 123(2) of the FVP Act; and

(E) stalking, under s 21A(1) of the Crimes Act.

(July 2021 Charges)

(ii) on 3 August 2021, he was charged with

(A) contravening an FVIO under s 123(2) of the FVP Act; and

(B) contravening a conduct condition of bail under s 30A of the Bail Act 1977;

(C) one count of harassing a witness under s 52A of the Summary Offences Act;

(August 2021 Charges)

(iii) on 30 December 2021, he was charged with:

(A) six counts of contravening a FVIO under s 123(2) of the FVP Act; and

(B) persistent contravention of an FVIO under s 125(1) of the FVP Act;

(December 2021 Charges)

(iv) on 31 December 2021, he accepted responsibility for a majority of the Charges by pleading guilty in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria to:

(A) one count of theft pursuant to 74 of the Crimes Act;

(B) one count of possession of a controlled weapon under s 6(1) of the CW Act;

(C) one count of possession of a prohibited weapon under s 5AA of the CW Act;

(D) one count of contravening a FVIO;

(E) two counts of contravening a conduct condition of bail;

(F) one count of harassing a witness;

(G) one count of persistent contravention of a FVIO;

(H) one count of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail;

in relation to which he was found guilty without conviction and sentenced to an 18-month Community Corrections Order.

1. In relation to Allegation 1, the Board relied upon the material in the Tribunal Book, including criminal charge sheets, extracts from court orders, the CCO dated 31 December 2021, a record of criminal history, transcripts of Magistrates' Court hearings, FVIOs, police briefs and Mr Thompson's earlier written submissions to the Board. The evidence relied upon by the Board was internally consistent and credible. Mr Thompson admitted that he had been charged, pleaded guilty and found guilty of the charges described above at [17]. The Tribunal notes that the charges pleaded to and which findings of guilt were made had been consolidated and amended during the hearing on 31 December 2021. The amended and consolidated charges are reflected in the transcript of that hearing contained in the Tribunal Book.
2. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Mr Thompson engaged in the conduct alleged in Allegation 1 of the Notice of Allegations and the particulars to that Allegation. The conduct being that following his plea of guilty, he was found guilty of criminal offences relating to theft, contravene FVIO, contravene conditions of bail, possession of a controlled weapon and a prohibited weapon, contravening a FVIO, contravening a condition of bail, harassing a witness, committing an indictable offence while on bail and persistent contravention of a FVIO.
3. Allegation 2 contained in the NOA was as follows (omitting the Particulars to the Allegation):

That Mr Thompson engaged in:

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law

and/or

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law in that

Mr Thompson contravened s 130(1) of the National Law by failing to notify the Board in writing within 7 days that a relevant [event] occurred.

1. The relevant factual particulars were that Mr Thompson failed to notify the Board within seven days of the following relevant events:

(a) On 22 July 2021, Mr Thompson was charged with seven offences, each punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more;

(b) On 3 August 2021, Mr Thompson was charged with three offences punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more;

(c) On 30 December 2021, Mr Thompson was charged with seven offences punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more.

1. In relation to Allegation 2, the Board relied upon the evidence in the Tribunal Book, including criminal charge sheets, extracts from court orders, the CCO dated 31 December 2021, a record of criminal history, transcripts of Magistrates' Court hearings, FVIOs, police briefs and Mr Thompson's earlier written submissions to the Board. Mr Thompson admitted the failure to comply with section 130 in the written submission from his lawyers dated 1 July 2022. It is noted that the Board did not provide a statement from an Ahpra employee confirming that they had searched the Board's records and could not find any record of a written notification of any of the charges.
2. Allegation 2 itself does not make clear all the events which are relied upon to make out this allegation. It is clear from the particulars to the allegation that the events of being charged on 22 July 2021, 3 August 2021 and 30 December 2021, are relied upon by the Board for Allegation 2. Although the particulars to Allegation 2 refer to the relevant subsection of section 130 deeming a finding of guilt on particular charges to be a relevant event for the purpose of Section 130 of the National Law, neither the allegation nor the particulars make clear that the Board was not notified of the finding of guilt within 7 days. The Tribunal therefore need not make any finding regarding that matter.
3. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Mr Thompson has engaged in the conduct alleged in Allegation 2 of the ANOA and the particulars to that Allegation, that is, he failed to notify the Board in writing within seven days of a relevant event, being that on three occasions Mr Thompson failed to notify the Board within seven days of being charged on 22 July 2021, 3 August 2021 and 30 December 2021.

1. As to the appropriate characterisation of the proven conduct, the Board submitted that the proven conduct under Allegation 1, should be characterised as professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law.
2. The Board submitted in relation to the conduct proven under Allegation 1, as follows:
   1. As to the nature and seriousness of the proven conduct, Mr Thompson was found guilty of multiple offences, including theft, contravene FVIO, contravene conditions of bail, possession of controlled and prohibited weapons, harassing a witness, commit an indictable offence whilst on bail and persistent contraventions of FVIOs;
   2. The offences occurred over an extended period and involved repeated breaches of court orders and bail conditions. The proven conduct was not isolated but was a sustained pattern of unlawful and coercive behaviour, including seeking to influence legal proceedings and ongoing contact with the Protected Person despite FVIOs and bail conditions. The conduct raised concerns as to Mr Thompson's respect for his legal obligations;
   3. The proven conduct undermines the public trust in the profession. The community expects nurses to uphold the law and maintain high standards of conduct. The proven conduct erodes that trust;
   4. The proven conduct has the potential to undermine the profession's good standing and the inherent trust in nurses;
   5. Mr Thompson failed to comply with the Code of Conduct for Nurses 2018 ('the Code of Conduct'), which provides that nurses should not engage in unlawful behaviour and should understand that such behaviour may be viewed as unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct and have implications for their registration.
3. Mr Thompson made no submissions regarding the characterisation of the proven conduct described in Allegation 1.
4. The Tribunal finds that the proven conduct described in Allegation 1 is serious. The proven conduct involved pleading guilty and being found guilty of offences, including theft, possession of controlled and prohibited weapons, contravene FVIO, contravene conditions of bail, harassing a witness, commit indictable offence whilst on bail and persistent contraventions of FVIOs. The conduct was not isolated and occurred over a number of months and in spite of FVIOs being made and bail conditions being imposed on Mr Thompson. The conduct was at odds with what the community expects from nurses. The community would expect that a member of the profession would not act in this way. The proven conduct has an impact on the profession's good standing.
5. For these reasons, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct proven under Allegation 1, is conduct that is inconsistent with Mr Thompson being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a practitioner within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law. The Tribunal is also comfortably satisfied that the conduct proven under Allegation 1, is unprofessional conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of equivalent training or experience. Therefore, the conduct constitutes professional misconduct under paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law.
6. As to the appropriate characterisation of the proven conduct described in Allegation 2, the Board submitted that the proven conduct, being the failure to notify the Board of the criminal charges, meets the definition of professional misconduct under paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition in section 5 of the National Law.
7. The Board submitted in relation to the characterisation of conduct described in Allegation 2, as follows:
   1. Mr Thompson failed to notify the Board of the criminal charges as required under section 130(1) of the National Law. Section 130(1) provides that a registered health practitioner must within seven days of becoming aware that a relevant event has occurred, give the Board written notice of the event;
   2. A relevant event is being charged with an offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more;
   3. Mr Thompson failed to comply with the Code of Conduct for Nurses 2018 ('the Code of Conduct'), which relevantly provides that nurses must comply with legislation relevant to the context of practice and abide by any reporting obligations under the National Law, including under section 130 of the National Law;
   4. Mr Thompson also failed to comply with the Registered Nurse Standards for Practice, 2016 ('the Standards'), which provides that nurses must be aware of their obligations under the National Law, including reporting requirements, and must inform Ahpra of charges relating to criminal offences.
8. Mr Thompson made no submissions regarding the characterisation of the conduct described in Allegation 2.
9. The Tribunal finds that the proven conduct described in Allegation 2 is serious. The proven conduct involved Mr Thompson failing to notify the Board on three occasions of criminal charges. Mr Thompson told the Tribunal that he was not aware of the obligation to notify of the charges. While it is no excuse for any nurse to be unaware of obligations as registered practitioners, Mr Thompson, as an experienced practitioner working in a sensitive environment, should have been aware of the obligation. The Code of Conduct requires practitioners to comply with section 130 of the National Law.
10. The Tribunal notes that the Board relies upon practitioners complying with section 130 of the National Law to fulfill its regulatory functions. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Thompson was unaware of his obligations under section 130 of the National Law, however, it was Mr Thompson's responsibility to be aware of his professional obligations, including to advise the Board in writing of a relevant event.
11. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proven conduct under Allegation 2 was serious, as it involved a failure to comply with a statutory obligation to bring important matters, being serious criminal charges, to the attention of the regulator.
12. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 2 is professional misconduct under the definition in paragraph (b) of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law, that is, the conduct was more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amount to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. The Tribunal was not satisfied in the context of the present case that the proven conduct constituted professional misconduct as defined in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law.

1. The Board sought the imposition on Mr Thompson of a reprimand and that he be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of two years.
2. Generally, global penalties should be avoided in disciplinary proceedings, but may be utilised where the charges are 'inextricably interwoven'.
3. In Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Williams (Legal Practice) [2022] VCAT 806 (15 July 2022) ('Williams'), the Tribunal referred to the earlier decision of Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374 ('Stirling'), noting that preferring individual penalties:

... allows for a sentence on one count to stand where a conviction for another count is quashed. Secondly, it is easier to assess whether a penalty is manifestly excessive or inadequate when each sentence is clearly pronounced on each count. Thirdly, by sentencing for separate offences, the court makes it clear to the public what the penalty for each offence is, thus assisting in the process of general deterrence. Finally, as in this case, adherence to this rule prevents conduct from one charge being used as an aggravating factor in assessing the penalty for another charge.

1. In Williams at [145], the Tribunal found that a global penalty may be appropriate in:

... some cases ... where the charged conduct is constituted by a course of behaviour as opposed to a set of separate events. In these circumstances where the facts of the case are so inextricably interwoven as to make it difficult to meet a clear standard of prescription, a global penalty may be applied.

1. In the present case, the Tribunal finds, as discussed above, that the proven conduct is constituted by Mr Thompson pleading guilty and being found guilty of criminal offences, including theft, possession of controlled and prohibited weapons, contravene FVIO, contravene conditions of bail, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, harassing a witness and persistent contraventions of FVIOs as well as Mr Thompson failing to notifying the Board of the criminal charges. The Tribunal is satisfied that the facts of the case are interwoven to the extent that a global determination may be applied.
2. The principles to be applied by the Tribunal in considering the appropriate determination are summarised in Medical Board of Australia and Pharmacy Board of Australia v Lee (Review & Regulation) [2019] VCAT 311, at [20], as follows:
   1. the purpose of the imposition of determinations is to protect the public;
   2. determinations are intended to maintain proper ethical and professional standards for the protection of the public and also for the protection of the profession in the sense of maintaining stature and integrity in the eyes of the public;
   3. determinations should in no way be punitive;
   4. the objectives of determinations can be achieved by specific deterrence, i.e. the deterrence of the person concerned from further inappropriate conduct, specific deterrence, by general deterrence, i.e. the deterrence of other practitioners minded to conduct themselves similarly, and by facilitation of rehabilitation on the part of the practitioner;
   5. personal matters such as shame, personal ordeal, and financial difficulty are of little relevance save insofar as they contribute to the specific deterrence of the practitioner;
   6. the likelihood of recidivism, or, put another way, an assessment of the ongoing risk posed by the practitioner, should be central to the imposition of a determination;
   7. the degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight into his or her conduct is relevant to the assessment of the continuing risk posed by the practitioner;
   8. insight can include as an understanding of the nature of the conduct, an acceptance that the conduct was wrong, an appreciation of why the practitioner engaged in that conduct, empathy with the consequences, and/or a willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and to do that which is necessary to avoid further transgressions; and
   9. any form of official censure is of consequence. It has been held that a reprimand should not be considered a 'slap over the wrist'.

1. The Tribunal considered the relevant factors as follows.

1. The Tribunal considers the proven conduct described in Allegation 1 to be serious, as discussed above at [36] to [39]. The nature and seriousness of the proven conduct described in Allegation 2 is discussed above at [41] to [45].

1. The Board, in summary, submitted the following regarding general deterrence:
   1. There is a need for general deterrence in this case as practitioners are expected to adhere to a standard of behaviour. If practitioners do not follow these standards, there should be consequences;
   2. Family violence is a serious matter and the offences are of a serious nature;
   3. It is imperative that the Tribunal make clear to other practitioners that conduct of this kind is unacceptable and will have serious consequences. It is also important to maintain public confidence in the system of regulation of practitioners;
   4. The determination should send a clear message that the Tribunal will not tolerate nurses engaging in criminal conduct. It is expected that nurses understand and uphold their obligations and the laws, regulations and codes of conduct which apply to them;
   5. The principles of general deterrence are focused on protecting the public.
2. Mr Thompson did not make any submissions relevant to general deterrence.
3. The Tribunal finds there is a need for general deterrence to be a significant part of the determination consideration to deter other practitioners from engaging in such serious misconduct. The Tribunal has regard to the protection of the public by deterrence of other practitioners and the maintenance of the reputation and standards of the profession. The determination in this matter needs to make clear the significant adverse consequences of engaging in such conduct.
4. The Tribunal is satisfied that general deterrence and the maintenance of professional standards are significant factors in arriving at a determination in this case.

1. In deciding the need for specific deterrence in making the appropriate determination, issues such as the insight and remorse of the practitioner are relevant.
2. The Board, in summary, made the following submissions relevant to the issue of specific deterrence:
   1. Guilty findings on the criminal charges including theft, possession of controlled and prohibited weapons, contravening a FVIO, contravening a bail condition, committing indictable offence whilst on bail, harassing a witness and persistent contraventions of FVIOs are deserving of consequences;
   2. Mr Thompson has not consistently been respectful of the bail conditions in relation to the criminal charges, therefore specific deterrence is required in this case;
   3. There is no evidence that Mr Thompson is remorseful or has insight into his conduct. Mr Thompson in making submissions today has 'lots of ifs and buts' about the charges and made personal comments regarding the police officer involved in the charges and the complainant for the FVIO;
   4. The Tribunal asked the Board whether Mr Thompson's guilty plea to the criminal charges and his acknowledgement in the hearing of the findings of guilt in the Magistrates' Court and his failure to notify the Board of the charges indicates some insight and remorse. In response, the Board submitted that those matters were the only indication of any insight or remorse. The only rehabilitation undertaken was pursuant to the Magistrates' Court imposed CCO.
3. Mr Thompson, in summary, relevantly submitted regarding specific deterrence, as follows:
   1. Mr Thompson does not condone family violence;
   2. He realises that he made a couple of mistakes trying to get to the reasons why the person was doing it to him;
   3. Mr Thompson's case is different to the cases referred in submissions by the Board, as he did not discharge a firearm, he did not make any threats with a weapon and he did not falsify a prescription or a medical certificate;
   4. The new FVIO granted while he was undertaking the Men's Behaviour Change Program, was obtained by the same woman involved with the previous FVIOs and charges. He had nothing to do with her for two years. She applied for a new FVIO, as the previous order was about to expire. Mr Thompson took it to trial and she withdrew the application at the 11th hour;
   5. He knows that he committed one breach by sending messages asking why she was doing this;
   6. Her saying that she came over to his place and spent the night does not make sense. She did not spend the night;
   7. Mr Thompson is aware of the actions he has done and what he should not have done. FVIOs are needed but can be used in a way that they are not supposed to be used. There should be an investigation first. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent;
   8. He is sorry that he let people down. Mr Thompson spent a quarter of a century in the intensive care unit of a major hospital and has seen some things. His conduct or performance at work was never an issue. Mr Thompson worked in Geelong before that and has had a good career and helped a lot of people.
4. The Tribunal notes the following matters raised by or on behalf of Mr Thompson in previous correspondence to the Board and in other submissions at the hearing, relevant to specific deterrence:
   1. Mr Thompson pleaded guilty to the charges of theft, possession of controlled and prohibited weapons, contravene FVIO, contravene conditions of bail, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, harassing a witness and persistent contraventions of FVIOs;
   2. The woman involved was never his partner. She had told police at different times that they had been in a two year relationship, a six month relationship and a brief relationship. Mr Thompson had got her to do some typing for him and she saw his financial position. He believes she wanted to be involved in that. One of the police officers involved in the charges has been stood down for assault and unpolicelike behaviour;
   3. In relation to the stolen keys, the police did not test that the keys actually unlocked the doors, only that they fitted into the lock and that the barrel would turn. That was why the charge was amended from four sets of keys to two sets;
   4. In relation to the weapons charges, the flick knife was a pen knife. It did not flick open. It needed two hands to open. The credit card knife was a gimmick thing. It was difficult to use as a knife. Mr Thompson forgot that it was in his wallet. He accepts that he should not have had it;
   5. The tomahawk was in the vehicle, as he had been chopping wood. The taser is a torch that he found. It makes the sound of a taser;
   6. Mr Thompson accepts that he did send a text to the lady asking her why she was doing this to him. He had made her feel welcome in town after she arrived. He did not ask her to drop the charges, but hoped that she would do so;
   7. Mr Thompson's understanding of the plea of guilty to the weapons charges, was that he was agreeing with whatever they said without admitting that he had done it. He had signed for the other charges. He pleaded guilty;
   8. In relation to the Men's Behaviour Change Program, it ran for 20 weeks. He had to extend the court orders, as it was difficult to get into the program. He has now completed the program;
   9. Mr Thompson stated that he knew half the stuff in the charges was 'bull';
   10. He did not know he had to tell the Board about the charges, he thought it was only if he was convicted;
   11. The written submissions from Mr Thompson's lawyers to the Board relevantly included the following:

(1) The incidents involve a single victim, were not of a violent or vicious nature and were not of an inappropriate sexual nature;

(2) Mr Thompson has shown insight into his behaviour of contacting the complainant and has reflected that it was inappropriate to contact her;

(3) He has taken responsibility for his behaviour and has not denied the charges. He has entered a guilty plea and accepted the penalty imposed by the court;

(4) From February 2020 until February 2022, Mr Thompson's wife and children had been 'trapped' in Malaysia due to the COVID-19 travel restrictions;

(5) Mr Thompson does not pose a risk to patients or to the reputation of health care workers;

(6) He was of the understanding that he did not need to report the matter to the Board, as he was sentenced to the CCO with no conviction recorded;

1. In his email to the Board dated 24 July 2023, Mr Thompson stated that he understood the gravity of the crimes he committed and takes full responsibility for them. In the same email, he makes a number of comments critical of the complainant's personal life.

1. The Tribunal finds that Mr Thompson has exhibited limited insight or remorse for his proven conduct. Mr Thompson has asserted that he understands the gravity of the criminal charges and takes full responsibility. While he has pleaded guilty to charges in the Magistrates' Court and acknowledged the pleas in this Tribunal, he has also sought to downplay the seriousness of the charges and indicated that half of the charges were 'bull'. He has also made personal attacks on one of the police involved in the charges and on the complainant for the FVIO. There is evidence of some attempts at rehabilitation, being the Men's Behaviour Program ordered by the Magistrates' Court. The Tribunal takes into account all the material referred to above.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that specific deterrence is a relevant factor in assessing the determination in this case. This conclusion is based on the seriousness of the proven conduct, Mr Thompson's limited insight and his conflicting statements relevant to insight and remorse.

Evidence of character and past disciplinary history

1. The Tribunal was referred to a disciplinary finding by the Board against Mr Thompson in 2023. As the conduct in this case occurred in 2021 and 2022, the disciplinary finding in 2023 is not a previous disciplinary finding when considering determinations in this case.
2. Mr Thompson did not provide any personal references.

1. Mr Thompson pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings at an early stage.
2. At the hearing in this Tribunal, Mr Thompson formally accepted the allegations as correct. He had not been involved in the proceeding for a significant period leading up to the hearing.

1. The Board referred the Tribunal to a number of other tribunal decisions on determinations. All cases have different facts and there was no decided case with the same facts and circumstances as the present matter. The Tribunal found the previous decisions useful in understanding the relevant range of determinations imposed on practitioners for similar conduct.

1. The Tribunal has taken into account the above matters and particularly due to the need for specific and general deterrence in this case, for the protection of the public from Mr Thompson and the maintenance of professional standards in the profession, it considers it is appropriate to impose on Mr Thompson a reprimand and disqualify him from applying for registration for a period.
2. Section 196(4)(a) of the National Law requires the Tribunal to fix a specified period for any disqualification imposed on a practitioner. We have concluded that a period of disqualification of two years from the date of the orders in this matter is necessary to indicate the serious nature of the conduct and to signal to Mr Thompson and other practitioners the adverse consequences from engaging in such conduct.
3. The Tribunal notes that to be registered in future, Mr Thompson would need to satisfy the Board that he was a fit and proper person to practice as a health practitioner after the expiry of the disqualification period.

1. The Tribunal has therefore decided that the necessary determinations in this matter are to reprimand Mr Thompson and disqualify him from applying to be registered for a period of two years from the date of the Tribunal's orders.

The following allegations in respect of former Registered Nurse Jeremy Thompson (Mr Thompson) are referred to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (Board) pursuant to section 193(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law).

In the Allegations, the following defined terms are used:

• Code of Conduct - Code of Conduct for Nurses (1 March 2018).

• Code of Ethics - Code of Ethics for Nurses (1 March 2018);

• Standard - Registered Nurse Standards for Practice (1 June 2016)

• Crimes Act - Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

• FVP Act - Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic)

• Controlled Weapon Act - Controlled Weapons Act 1990 (Vic)

• Summary Offences Act - Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic);

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law;

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law in that:

(A) one count of theft pursuant to s 74 of the Crimes Act;

(B) two counts of possession of a controlled weapon under s 6(1) of the Controlled Weapons Act;

(C) two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon under s 5AA of the Controlled Weapons Act;

(D) contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order (FVIO) under s123(2) of the FVP Act; and

(E) stalking, under s 21A(1) of the Crimes Act.

(A) contravening an FVIO under s 123(2) of the FVP Act; and

(B) contravening a conduct condition of bail under s 30A of the Bail Act 1977;

(C) one count of harassing a witness under s 52A of the Summary Offences Act;

(A) six counts of contravening a FVIO under s 123(2) of the FVP Act; and

(B) persistent contravention of an FVIO under s 125(1) of the FVP Act;

(iv) on 31 December 2021, he accepted responsibility for a majority of the Charges by pleading guilty in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria to:

(A) one count of theft pursuant to 74 of the Crimes Act;

(B) one count of possession of a controlled weapon under s 6(1) of the CW Act;

(C) one count of possession of a prohibited weapon under s 5AA of the CW Act;

(E) two counts of contravening a conduct condition of bail;

(G) one count of persistent contravention of a FVIO;

(H) one count of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail;

in relation to which he was found guilty without conviction and sentenced to an 18-month Community Corrections Order.

(A) Mr Thompson was first registered as a Nurse on 6 January 1997. From 1 July 2010, with the commencement of the National Law, Mr Thompson was registered with the Board as a registered nurse (Division 1) (NMW0001052380).

(B) Mr Thompson has been employed as a registered nurse by the Royal Melbourne Hospital since 8 February 1998, however, he has not worked since 13 December 2023 due to a shoulder injury sustained at work, in relation to which he has received WorkCover,

(I) on 9 July 2021, the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Seymour ordered a limited FVIO for a period of six months against Mr Thompson, for the protection of [the person] (Protected Person);

(II) on 22 July 2021, Victoria Police received a report from the Protected Person who indicated that her house had been locked from the outside and her house keys appeared to have been stolen;

(III) Victoria Police subsequently approached Mr Thompson, who denied the keys were in his vehicle or in his possession;

(IV) on conducting a pat-down search of Mr Thompson, Victoria Police located the following controlled weapons:

(i) a flick knife, in the front left pocket of Mr Thompson's pants; and

(V) on conducting a search of Mr Thompson's vehicle, Victoria

(VI) Four sets of keys belonging to the Protected Person were subsequently located in the centre console of Mr Thompson's vehicle.

(VII) As a result of Mr Thompson's conduct set out at (C)(I) to (VI) above, pursuant to charge sheets dated 22 July 2021 Mr Thompson was charged with the July 2021 Charges.

(VIII) Mr Thompson signed an undertaking of bail dated 22 July 2021 and was bailed to appear at Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Seymour on 4 November 2021 in respect of the July 2021 Charges.

(IX) According to a statement of the Protected Person made to Victoria Police dated 9 September 2021, on 22 July 2021 the Protected Person contacted the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Seymour to inform them of the July 2021 Charges. On 6 August 2021, the Court varied the limited FVIO to an interim full FVIO.

(I) a condition of Mr Thompson's undertaking of bail dated 22 July 2021 was to not commit family violence or communicate with the Protected Person, including by telephone, text message or email.

(II) Pursuant to a statement dated 16 September 2021 made by informant Jason Woosnam, leading senior constable, Victoria Police:

(i) on 25 July 2021 Mr Thompson rang the Protected Person, however she did not answer.

(ii) On 29 July, 30 July and 1 August 2021 Mr Thompson sent text messages to the Protected Person.

(iii) On 1 August 2021, Mr Thompson sent a text message to the Protected Person in which he attempted to coerce her to drop the intervention order to cease prosecution.

(iv) On 3 August 2021, Victoria Police formally interviewed Mr Thompson, who admitted to communicating with the Protected Person.

(III) As a result of Mr Thompson's conduct set out at (D)(I) to (II) above, pursuant to a charge sheet dated 3 August 2021 Mr Thompson was charged with the August 2021 Charges.

(I) According to statements of the Protected Person made to Victoria Police dated 12 October 2021 and 2 November 2021, on 9, 10, 11, 24, 29 and 31 October 2021, Mr Thompson committed persistent contraventions of the FVIO whilst on bail including by:

(i) attempting to contact the Protected Person through a mutual friends;

(ii) going to or remaining within 50 metres of the Protected Person (five counts);

(iii) approaching or remaining within 5 metres of the Protected Person;

(iv) spending the night with the Protected Person at his house and sleeping in the same bed together;

(v) sending two text messages to the Protected Person;

(vi) approaching and remaining within 200 m of the Protected Person's house.

(II) As a result of Mr Thompson's conduct set out at (E)(I)(i) to (vi) above, pursuant to a charge sheet dated 30 December 2021, Mr Thompson was charged with the December 2021 Charges.

(III) On 31 December 2021, Mr Thompson accepted responsibility for the charges set out at paragraph 1.1(b)(iv) above before the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Seymour, when he plead guilty to those charges and was sentenced to an 18-month Community Corrections Order without conviction.

(v) By engaging in the conduct particularised at (A) to (E) above, Mr Thompson failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, which among other things provides:

1.2 'Nurses practise honestly and ethically and should not engage in unlawful behaviour as it may affect their practice and/or damage the reputation of the profession. Nurses must:

c. not participate in unlawful behaviour and understand that unlawful

behaviour may be viewed as unprofessional conduct or professional

misconduct and have implications for their registration...'

Principles 1.2(c), Code of Conduct for Nurses (1 March 2018)

(vi) By engaging in the conduct particularised at (A) to (E) above, Mr Thompson failed to comply with the Code of Ethics, which requires that:

(A) nurses demonstrate professional values such as respect, justice, responsiveness, caring, compassion, empathy, trustworthiness and integrity. They support and respect the dignity and universal rights of all people, including patients, colleagues and families;

(B) nurses maintain fitness to practice so as not to compromise their ability to provide quality, safe care;

(C) nurses value their own dignity, well-being and health. To achieve this requires positive practice environments, characterised by professional recognition, education, reflection, support structures, adequate resourcing, sound management practices and occupational health and safety;

(D) nurses maintain standards of personal conduct at all times. They reflect well on the profession and enhance its image and public confidence. In their professional role, nurses recognise and maintain personal relationship boundaries.

Principles 1.8, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5, Code of Conduct for Nurses (1 March 2018)

(vii) By engaging in the conduct particularised at (A) to (E) above, Mr Thompson failed to comply with the Standard, which required him to:

(A) comply with legislation, common law, policies, guidelines and other standards or requirements relevant to the context of practice when making decisions

Principle 1.4, Registered Nurse Standards for Practice (1 June 2016)

2. Allegation 2 - Failure to provide Board with Notice of Relevant Event

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law

(b) unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law in that Mr Thompson contravened s 130(1) of the National Law by failing to notify the Board in writing within 7 days that a relevant occurred.

(i) The Board refers to and repeats the particulars at paragraphs 1.1(A) to (E) above

(ii) Pursuant to section 130(1) of the National Law, a registered health practitioner must, within seven days after becoming aware that a relevant event has occurred in relation to the practitioner, give the National Board established for the practitioner's health profession written notice of the event.

(iii) A relevant event in relation to a health practitioner includes where the practitioner:

(A) is charged, whether in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, with an offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more (s130(3)(a)(ii));

(B) is convicted of or is the subject of a finding of guilt for an offence punishable by imprisonment, whether in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere (s 130(3)(b)(ii)).

(A) are all offences that are punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more, making them relevant events within the meaning provided at s 130(3)(a)(ii) of the National Law;

(B) were not disclosed to the Board by Mr Thompson within 7 days as required by s 130(1) of the National Law.

(v) The charges punishable by imprisonment for which Mr Thompson was found guilty set out at 1.1(b)(iv)(A) - (H) above:

(A) constitute a relevant event within the meaning provided at s 130(3)(b)(ii) of the National Law;

(B) were not disclosed to the Board by Mr Thompson within 7 days as required by s 130(1) of the National Law.

(c) The conduct of Mr Thompson set out at particulars 2.1(i) to (v) above is inconsistent with:

(ii) The Code of Conduct, which among other things required him to:

(A) 'abide by any reporting obligations under the National Law and other relevant legislation. Please refer to sections 129, 130, 131 and 141 of the National Law and the NMBA's Guidelines for mandatory notifications'.

Principle 1.1(a), Code of Conduct for Nurses (1 March 2018)

[1] The NOA is attached at Appendix A to these reasons.