The Tribunal notes that on 1 December 2023, the Tribunal ordered:

1. 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. Ms Woodley engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law, in that, between 15 November 2021 and 4 June 2022, Ms Woodley made public posts on her Facebook account which were inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a registered nurse, in that, Ms Woodley's statements in the posts contradicted and were counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and undermine the national immunisation campaign.
2. Ms Woodley engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law, in that, between 5 October 2021 and 12 July 2023, Ms Woodley engaged in inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening communications towards Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency officers, which was inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a registered nurse.

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 2009, Claire Woodley is reprimanded.
2. Under section 196(2)(e) of the Health Practitioner National Law 2009, Claire Woodley's registration as a nurse is cancelled.
3. Under section 196(4)(a) of the Health Practitioner National Law 2009, Claire Woodley is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of three years from the date of this order.
4. Under section 196(4)(b) of the Health Practitioner National Law 2009, Claire Woodley is prohibited from providing any health service, whether as an employee, contractor, manager or volunteer until such time as she is registered as a health practitioner.

Ms H Daniel of Counsel instructed by Mr K Krakauer, solicitor, Minter Ellison Lawyers.

1. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia ('the Board') has referred to the Tribunal allegations about the respondent nurse, Ms Claire Woodley ('Ms Woodley' or 'the respondent'), under section 193 of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic) ('the National Law'). In summary, the factual allegations are:
   1. between 15 November 2021 and 4 June 2022, Ms Woodley made public posts on her Facebook account (the 'posts') which contradicted or were counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign or messaging and/or had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and/or undermine the national immunisation campaign ('Allegation 1');
   2. between 5 October 2021 and 12 July 2023, Ms Woodley engaged in inappropriate and/or discourteous and/or abusive and/or threatening communications towards Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('Ahpra') officers which, are inconsistent with the professional values and/or qualities required and/or expected of a registered nurse ('Allegation 2'); and
   3. between 21 October 2021 and 14 December 2021, Ms Woodley failed to comply with conditions imposed by the Board on her registration ('Allegation 3').
2. The particulars to Allegation 1 refer to 37 Facebook posts relied upon by the Board.
3. Having considered all the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct described in Allegation 1 has been proven. The particulars of the Allegation are discussed later in these reasons. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the following posts support Allegation 1, being the posts numbered 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13 to 19, 21 to 30, 32, 36 and 37. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the posts numbered 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 20, 31 and 33 to 35 support Allegation 1.
4. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct described in Allegation 2 above, has been proven. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the conduct described in Allegation 3 has been proven.
5. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegations 1 and 2 above, when the conduct described in each Allegation is considered separately, constitute professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law.
6. The Tribunal is satisfied that the necessary determinations in this matter are that Ms Woodley is reprimanded, her registration as a nurse is cancelled, she is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of three years from the date of this order and is prohibited from providing any health service until such time as she is registered as a health practitioner.

1. Following a confidential notification to Ahpra on 10 August 2021, the Board decided on 6 December 2021 to commence an investigation of Ms Woodley regarding the posts.
2. On 14 December 2021, the Immediate Action Committee of the Board decided to take immediate action to suspend Ms Woodley's registration as a nurse.
3. On 17 November 2023, the Board made a referral to the Tribunal regarding Ms Woodley and attached a Notice of Allegations ('NOA'). The Allegations and particulars contained in the NOA are reproduced in Schedule 1 to these reasons.
4. In about March 2024, pursuant to directions made by the Tribunal, the Board filed a Tribunal Book containing the documents it wished to rely upon at the hearing. A supplementary Tribunal Book was filed on 7 March 2025.
5. On 30 October 2024, the Tribunal received a bundle of documents from Ms Woodley consisting of 41 pages. The Tribunal considered this material in reaching its decision.
6. The proceeding came on for hearing before the Tribunal on 7 April 2025. Prior to the hearing, the respondent had indicated in writing to the Tribunal that she was not proposing to attend the hearing.
7. Ms Woodley did not appear at the hearing. At the hearing, the Board as well as relying on the Tribunal Book and the supplementary Tribunal Book, also relied on a written outline of submissions, dated 28 October 2024.
8. At the commencement of the hearing, the Board took the Tribunal to correspondence between the parties and to an extent from the Tribunal registry to the parties, which indicated that Ms Woodley was aware of the proceedings, had been served with the referral, the NOA and all material to be relied upon by the Board at the hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Woodley was aware of the proceedings and this hearing, had been served with the referral, the NOA and all material to be relied upon by the Board.
9. The Board tendered the Tribunal Book and the supplementary Tribunal Book and made oral submissions. During these submissions, it became clear that the Board was seeking to rely on social media posts for the purpose of Allegation 1 and emails for the purpose of Allegation 2, which were not referred to in the NOA, or the schedules to the NOA which provided the details of the relevant posts and emails. The Board applied for leave to amend Allegation 2, to expand the period of the alleged emails and to rely upon emails not currently referred to in Schedule B of the NOA. For the reasons given orally at the hearing, the Tribunal refused the application to amend the NOA.
10. During submissions, the Tribunal raised an issue about the adequacy of the evidence to prove Allegation 3. The Board indicated that it could conduct further enquiries. The Tribunal has not granted leave for the Board to reopen its evidentiary case and file new evidence.
11. At the end of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision. The following are the Tribunal's reasons for decision.

1. On 2 May 2006, Ms Woodley was first registered as a nurse.
2. The Tribunal was not provided with any information as to Ms Woodley's training or where and for how long Ms Woodley practised as a nurse.
3. The posts relied upon by the Board for Allegation 1 were all published on Facebook between 15 November 2021 and 4 June 2022 and were accessible by the general public.
4. The email correspondence between Ms Woodley and Ahpra relied upon for Allegation 2, was sent in the period between 5 October 2021 and 12 July 2023.

1. Section 193 of the National Law relevantly provides:

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

(a) for a registered health practitioner, the Board reasonably believes, based on a notification or for any other reason -

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

(b) 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

(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;

(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 -

(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;

(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;

(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. Under section 6 of the National Law, VCAT is a responsible tribunal for the purpose of the National Law.
2. 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

(i) a condition to which the practitioner's registration was subject; or

(ii) an undertaking given by the practitioner to the National Board that registers the practitioner; and

1. The Board relied upon the Code of Conduct for Nurses, effective 1 March 2018 ('the Code of Conduct'). Relevantly, the Code of Conduct provides:

Individual nurses have their own personal beliefs and values. However, the

code outlines specific standards which all nurses are expected to adopt in

It is important that nurses are aware of their obligations under the National

Law, including reporting requirements and meeting registration standards.

(b) ... recognise that a breach of any restriction would place the public at

risk and may constitute unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct

Positive professional relationships are built on effective communication

that is respectful, kind, compassionate and honest. To communicate

(e) be non-judgemental and not refer to people in a non-professional

manner verbally or in correspondence/records, including refraining

from behaviour that may be interpreted as bullying or harassment

Nurses embody integrity, honesty, respect and compassion.

Nurses have a responsibility to maintain their physical and mental health to

practise safely and effectively. To promote health for nursing practice,

(a) understand and promote the principles of public health, such as health

In advocating for community and population health, nurses must:

(a) use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health

and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and populations

(b) understand and apply the principles of primary and public health,

including health education, health promotion, disease prevention,

control and health screening using the best available evidence in

(c) participate in efforts to promote the health of communities and meet

their obligations with respect to disease prevention including

vaccination, health screening and reporting notifiable diseases.

1. In the circumstances where serious allegations are made against a party including falsifying a document or fraud, the Briginshaw standard applies to the state of satisfaction required in making adverse findings regarding these allegations.[1]
2. The principle does not change the standard of proof required to prove the allegations. The civil standard of on the balance of probabilities applies. 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 Ms Woodley is considered in light of this principle.
3. The Tribunal must not make lightly a finding on the balance of probabilities that Ms Woodley was engaged in the conduct alleged in the Allegations. This does not mean that a tribunal could not be satisfied of a serious allegation on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT OF THE POSTS UNDER ALLEGATION 1

1. As the Board has the burden of proof in this matter, if the Tribunal could not be comfortably satisfied of the meaning of a post, as the language or necessary context was ambiguous or uncertain or there were reasonably available alternative meanings, then the Tribunal has reached a conclusion that the Board has not discharged its burden in relation to that post.
2. The process of considering the posts in this proceeding, is not to make any judgements of the posts beyond Allegation 1, the Code of Conduct and the National Law. Whether the Tribunal finds that a particular post supports Allegation 1 or not, should not be seen to be any type of approval or otherwise of the conduct, outside of the strict types of findings we are required to make. Similarly, a post in the context of this case may not support Allegation 1 in the circumstances of this case, but that does not mean it would not do so in different circumstances.
3. The Tribunal specifically notes the following matters in relation to the assessment of the posts:
   1. The Tribunal has assessed each post, as discussed below. Some posts are unclear or ambiguous or we have been unable to establish the relevant context;
   2. In examining each post, we have considered whether the post is as described in Allegation 1, including that its fits within the type of offending conduct alleged for that post. If a post is not as described in Allegation 1 in the Notice of Allegations, we have considered it no further;
   3. The Tribunal has considered how directly the post relates to the description of the offending conduct in Allegation 1;
   4. The Tribunal has, in the case of each post, considered Ms Woodley's rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ('the Charter') and whether these rights are interfered with. The Tribunal has balanced the private and public interests in assessing the post; and
   5. The Tribunal considers that the re-posting of an article, meme, video or comment is prima facie approval of the item by Ms Woodley.

1. There were a number of posts which we were not satisfied were in relation to the conduct alleged in Allegation 1. In relation to some of these matters, the Board submitted that the posts needed to be read with other posts on a particular topic to understand that the post was about a particular topic. The Board did not provide an analysis of which posts should be read together and what linked those particular posts.
2. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that these posts can be linked as submitted by the Board, when the posts were at times posted months apart.
3. Secondly, there were a significant number of posts which were ambiguous or uncertain as to their meaning. This group of posts overlaps with the issue as to whether the posts fall within the relevant particular.
4. The Board did not produce the relevant material proving the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign. In those circumstances, we are able to take into account those aspects of the public health response that we consider notorious, such as mask mandates, social distancing, lockdowns and vaccination measures. We are not prepared to consider lesser-known aspects of the public health response, as the Board has failed to prove these matters.

ALLEGATION 1 - POSTS CONTRADICTING OR WERE COUNTER TO PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH CAMPAIGN OR MESSAGING AND/OR HAD THE POTENTIAL TO UNDERMINE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE TO COVID-19 AND/OR UNDERMINE THE NATIONAL IMMUNISATION CAMPAIGN

1. The posts which fall into the category of not supporting Allegation 1 and/or being ambiguous or uncertain as to their meaning, were the posts numbered 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 20, 31 and 33 to 35 in Schedule A to the NOA.
2. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that in posts numbered 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13 to 19, 21 to 30, 32, 36 and 37, Ms Woodley makes comments or reposts material which contradict and were counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and undermine the national immunisation campaign. Some of the material includes:
   1. Post 1 contains a picture of a tweet stating, 'You cannot catch a fatal disease by walking past someone in a shop. Get a grip you absolute lunatics'. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post contradicted and was counter to public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign, as it minimised the risks of COVID-19;
   2. Post 4 refers to vaccines as 'wacky jabs' and teachers being 'COERCED' into them. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   3. Post 6 contains a statement by Ms Woodley, 'Vaccinated people dying from Covid doesn't mean vaccines don't work. Yes the fuck it does'. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine, as the post implies that the vaccine is not effective. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   4. Post 8 contains a meme with the statement, 'When you're going to get toxic chemicals injected into your body to keep you healthy'. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine, as the post refers to vaccines as toxic chemicals. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   5. Post 10 contains a repost which includes the comment that the poster would not wish the vaccine on their worst enemy. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   6. Post 13 is a meme which refers to Government health advice as including, 'Get injected with untested vaccines'. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   7. Post 14 is a meme of a child holding a shield with syringes stuck in it with the words, 'Give it up for this hero'. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign, as it encourages people to resist taking the vaccine;
   8. Post 15 includes comments from Ms Woodley in relation mask mandates and the COVID-19 vaccine including, 'DO NOT take the Boosta ... and comply with this fucking clown show anymore.' The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post contradicts and was counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign and undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   9. Post 16 is a repost with the words 'When the truth comes out you can't unvax your ...'. The implication of the post is that the vaccine is a greater risk then advised. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   10. Posts 17 and 18 are a repost and a meme about the risks of myocarditis from the vaccine. The posts are unbalanced as they do not provide the relevant information about the risks and benefits of the vaccine. The posts are discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that these posts undermine the national immunisation campaign;
   11. Post 19 is a meme with the words, 'We won't really know the long-term side effects for maybe 2 years'. The post is unbalanced. The implication of the post is that the vaccine is dangerous. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   12. Post 21 is a repost of the comment, 'Even the virus discriminates against the unvaccinated it doesn't seem to want anything to do with us.' The post implies the false premise that people taking the vaccine, are more likely to get COVID-19, than those who do not take the vaccine. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   13. Post 22 is a comment from Ms Woodley which includes the following, 'How's that booster shot working out for ya ? It's a medication not a V#%*ine. You have been majorly conned. The un-waxed are all healthy and well.' The post implies the false premise that people taking the vaccine are more likely to become sick than those who do not take the vaccine. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   14. Post 23 includes comments from Ms Woodley, 'Be forewarned. This is a fucking experiment. Don't inject your babies [baby emoji]' and 'These Waxines are in TRIAL and have ZERO mid to long term safety data. Why the Hell would you give this to your own child let alone yourself.' The post is unbalanced. The implication of the post is that the vaccine is an unacceptable risk. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   15. Post 24 includes a quote, 'When children have almost zero chance of being negatively impacted by CV, but you sacrifice them for the greater good. May God have mercy on your souls, because we won't.' The post implies the false premise that children are safe from COVID-19 without the vaccine and that there is an unacceptable risk giving the vaccine to children. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   16. Post 25 included the comment, 'You are sick because you got jabbed with a computer modelled, gene therapy synthetic spike protein that has completely fucked up your immune system'. The post implies the false premise that people taking the vaccine are likely to be sick. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
   17. Post 26 includes a meme which states:

My doctor asked me if I have been vaccinated yet. I told him I don't need to be vaccinated because I carry my lucky rock with me. He asked "what does your lucky rock do?" I replied, "the same thing your vaccine does, fuck all".

The post implies the false information that the vaccine provides no protection from COVID-19. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;

1. Post 27 is a meme with a picture of an elephant standing in a room and the words 'The unvaccinated aren't dying'. The post implies the false premise that people who are unvaccinated are not dying from COVID-19. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
2. Post 28 includes a comment from Ms Woodley, 'Don't get the B#%STER Jab! Don't do it! Wana feel really fucking sick ? You've been conned'. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;
3. Post 29 was a repost stating:

Serious question for the parents of 5-11 year olds who are getting their kids the [vaccine emoji]... What if it does affect fertility? Are you ready for that conversation with your kids 15 years from now when they ask you why they can't have kids?

The post implies the false information that the vaccination may cause infertility. The post is alarmist and unbalanced. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;

1. Post 30 includes the comment from Mr Woodley, 'Whose getting sick ? Who is in the hospital ? ... Who is dying from convid? The jabbed'. The post implies the false premise that people taking the vaccine are more likely to be sick and die, than those who do not take the vaccine. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;

1. Post 32 is a repost showing protesters and a sign stating 'Vaxism is the Disease'. The post implies the false premise that the vaccination is the problem. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign;

1. Post 36 is a repost which includes the words, 'Every day more evidence comes out on the serious vaccine reactions, when is the government and MSM going to start telling the truth on these dangerous vaccines [angry emoji faces]'. The post is alarmist and unbalanced. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign; and

Thousands of kids suffering from Heart Damage (Myocarditis) and Elite Athletes dropping dead on the field all over the world...don't worry though, it's totally 'safe' and very effective at reducing the global population [face emoji].

The post implies the information that the vaccination may cause death. The post is alarmist and unbalanced. The post is discouraging people from taking the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post undermines the national immunisation campaign.

1. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that these posts to a greater or lesser extent, expressly or by clear implication, contradict and were counter to public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and undermine the national immunisation campaign.
2. A nurse's professional values apply to the practitioner's conduct regardless of the setting, including when using social media. Nurses have a responsibility to promote the public health, such as health promotion activities and vaccination. They also have a responsibility to understand and apply the principles of public health, including disease prevention and control and using the best available evidence in making practice decisions. Nurses have their own beliefs and values but must adhere to the Code of Conduct.
3. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the posts provide information about important health matters outside of Ms Woodley's scope of practice. The information is not balanced or unbiased and does not show an understanding of public health principles, including for health promotion, disease prevention and control. Ms Woodley has not ensured that the information is not false or elicits an unwarranted fear in the minds of others.
4. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Ms Woodley's conduct in publishing the posts was inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a registered nurse. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Allegation 1 is proven.
5. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Ms Woodley's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on her right is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Ms Woodley's Charter rights is lawful, reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter and that none of Ms Woodley's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

1. As discussed above, at the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal refused the Board's application to amend the NOA to include emails which were not referred to in the NOA or Schedule B to the NOA and were outside of the period specified in Allegation 2. The Tribunal will therefore only consider the emails specified by the Board in the Allegation 2 of the NOA and Schedule B to the NOA.
2. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that emails numbered 1 to 8 in Schedule B to the NOA, contain inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and/or threatening communications from Ms Woodley towards Ahpra officers. Some of the emails include the following:
   1. In Email 1 from Ms Woodley to Ahpra, she refers to herself as Colin and that she is a man. She states that she has an invisible penis. Further, she states that Claire Woodley is living in Portugal with 'her tranny wife'. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this correspondence was inappropriate and discourteous to the regulator in response to correspondence from the regulator regarding professional disciplinary matters;
   2. Email 2 includes the statement, 'I dream and look forward to the day when every single one of you criminally insane traiterous (sic) bastards on the board of AHPRA are tried and convicted for Crimes Against Humanity. Which every single one of you will'. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this correspondence was inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening to Ahpra officers, in response to correspondence from the regulator regarding professional disciplinary matters;
   3. Email 3 includes the statement, 'I repeat Cease and Desist all Vaccine Mandates including injecting our babies and children with this Bio Weapon you Bastards. Join the side of God and Christ or suffer the consequences of your criminal actions . Which I am afraid will be much more than a piss weak suspension'. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this correspondence was inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening to Ahpra officers, in response to correspondence from the regulator regarding professional disciplinary matters;
   4. Email 4 includes the following:

Refer to my previous emails entitled 'Cease and Desist ' and if you didn't hear me last email please Fuck Off.

I'm very excited about my court case in the near future ...when I sue you all for crimes against humanity and seeing you all in jail where you belong.

C. Woodley

The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this correspondence was inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening to Ahpra officers, in response to correspondence from the regulator regarding professional disciplinary matters;

Hello , all you need to know is that I'm not working as a nurse anymore and will not be working as a nurse until AHPRA removes the vaccine mandates for Nurses and all of you are in jail where you will rot for the rest of your lives.

All correspondence that has been forwarded to me from you, will be used in a court of law at the appropriate time against all AHPRA Board members .

For your CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, against the good people of Australia.

I do not consent to any of your demands and I will not comply with any of your Nazi demands regarding 'Covid Re‐Education'.

Who the Fuck do you think you are?

Injecting a Bio ‐Weapon into babies 5‐11 next I see ? Fuck You All.

Get used to a padded cell you Bastards.

Regards,

Claire Woodley

The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this correspondence was inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening to Ahpra officers, in response to correspondence from the regulator regarding professional disciplinary matters;

I'm not working as a Nurse anymore because of your coercion and illegal vaccination mandates. So please Fuck Off and stop emailing me

The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this correspondence was inappropriate, discourteous and abusive to Ahpra officers, in response to correspondence from the regulator regarding professional disciplinary matters;

I truly am looking forward to seeing each and every one of you in a jail cell for the rest of your lives for Crimes Against Humanity.

May God have Mercy on your souls.

The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this correspondence was inappropriate and threatening to Ahpra officers, in response to correspondence from the regulator regarding professional disciplinary matters;

Good morning , as stated in my last email all National AHPRA Board Members have been formally served with a CEASE and DESIST letter outlining all of your criminal activity.

The warning still stands.

WE SEE YOU !

All Nurses are aware of your bullshit illegal gagging and censoring and your time is nearly up.

Your criminal demands are of no consequence to me.

The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this correspondence was inappropriate and threatening to Ahpra officers, in response to correspondence from the regulator regarding professional disciplinary matters.

1. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the above emails contravene the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct relevantly provides that nurses should engage in communication in a respectful, kind, compassionate and honest manner. Nurses should not refer to people in a non-professional manner and should refrain from behaviour that is bullying or harassing.
2. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Ms Woodley's conduct in sending the emails was inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a nurse. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Allegation 2 has been proven.

ALLEGATION 3 - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS ON REGISTRATION

1. Allegation 3 is that Ms Woodley failed to comply with the conditions imposed on her registration by the Board. On 21 October 2021, the Board imposed conditions on Ms Woodley's registration as a nurse requiring her to undertake education regarding social media use, COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccination, Law and Ethics and the Code of Conduct. The conditions required Ms Woodley to make a nomination to the Board within 21 days as to the method of the education. The Board submits that Ms Woodley did not lodge this nomination.
2. The Board has not provided direct evidence of Ms Woodley's failure to lodge such a nomination with the Board. For example, an affidavit from an Ahpra officer that they had undertaken a search of the Ahpra records and no nomination required by the condition on Ms Woodley's registration has been lodged. Instead, the Board relied upon correspondence from Ms Woodley in the period prior to the date when the nomination was due.
3. On 29 October 2021, in response to the Board providing written notice of the conditions on Ms Woodley's registration, Ms Woodley emailed the Board including the following:

I'm not working as a Nurse anymore because of your coercion and illegal vaccination mandates. So please Fuck Off and stop emailing me.

1. Further on 15 November 2021, in response to the Board providing written notice that the condition on Ms Woodley's registration regarding the nomination was due to be met by 17 November 2021, Ms Woodley emailed the Board including the following:

I do not consent to any of your demands and I will not comply with any of your Nazi demands regarding 'Covid Re‐Education'.

1. The Board asked the Tribunal to accept that the intention of Ms Woodley as appears from these emails, is that she would not lodge the required nomination with the Board and this should be sufficient to find that Ms Woodley did not in fact comply with the requirement by 17 November 2021 or at all, up until the time she was suspended.
2. The Board has the burden of proof in this matter, as discussed above the Briginshaw principle applies and the relevant evidence to prove the default lay within the Board's control. There was no reasonable explanation for the failure to provide this evidence. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that Ms Woodley failed to comply with the requirement on her registration to make the education nomination by 17 November 2021. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that Allegation 3 has been proven.

1. On the basis of the discussion above, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct described in Allegation 1, that is between 15 November 2021 and 4 June 2022, Ms Woodley made public posts on her Facebook account which contradicted and were counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and undermine the national immunisation campaign, has been proven. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the following posts support Allegation 1, being posts numbered 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13 to 19, 21 to 30, 32, 36 and 37. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the posts numbered 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 20, 31 and 33 to 35 support Allegation 1.
2. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Ms Woodley's conduct as described in Allegation 2, that is, between 5 October 2021 and 12 July 2023, Ms Woodley engaged in inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening communications towards Ahpra officers which are inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of registered nurses, by sending emails 1 to 8, has been proven. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Allegation 2 has been proven.
3. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that Ms Woodley failed to comply with the requirement on her registration to make the education nomination by 17 November 2021. The Tribunal is therefore not comfortably satisfied that Allegation 3 has been proven.

1. The Board submitted that Ms Woodley's conduct, when each of Allegations 1 and 2 are considered separately, should be found to constitute professional misconduct. The Board submits that the conduct outlined in each Allegation constitutes professional misconduct under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law. That is, in relation to paragraph (a), that the conduct was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. In relation to paragraph (b), that the conduct was more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that when considered together amounts to conduct that was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience and, in relation to paragraph (c), that the conduct was inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a health practitioner.
2. In characterising the proven conduct, the Board relevantly relies on the following:
   1. The posts may have caused vaccine hesitancy;
   2. The posts may have undermined compliance with public health directions;
   3. The posts had the potential to undermine public confidence in health professionals, particularly nurses; and
   4. Ms Woodley's action and the nature of her correspondence has the potential to undermine public confidence in the regulatory system.
3. As the Tribunal has found Allegation 1 proven, however the Board has not proven each aspect of the conduct relied upon in the particulars, and the Tribunal has not found Allegation 3 proven, the Tribunal must take care to only characterise the proven conduct. The Board's submissions above were made on the basis that it would prove all the posts supporting Allegation 1 and Allegation 3. It has failed to do so.
4. Of the 37 posts alleged in Allegation 1, the Tribunal above has found 12 posts are ambiguous or uncertain as to their meanings and/or did not make out the Allegation 1 as alleged. The Tribunal has found that 25 posts support Allegation 1.
5. The Tribunal has found that Ms Woodley has engaged in conduct described in Allegation 1, which involved posts which contained statements that:
   1. contradicted and were counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19; and
   2. undermine the national immunisation campaign.
6. Such conduct created a risk that community confidence in public health responses to the pandemic and evidence-based measures for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and the broader health system would be undermined.
7. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct under Allegation 1 was serious, as the proven conduct contravened the Code of Conduct. The posts provide information about important health matters outside of Ms Woodley's scope of practice. The information is not balanced or unbiased and does not show an understanding of public health principles, including for health promotion and disease prevention and control. Ms Woodley has not ensured that the information is not false or elicits an unwarranted fear in the minds of others. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proven conduct was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training and experience and, was inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a health practitioner.
8. The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied 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.
9. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the characterisation of the proven conduct described in Allegation 1 on Ms Woodley's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on her rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Ms Woodley's Charter rights is lawful, reasonable and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Ms Woodley's Charter rights described above affect this finding.
10. The Tribunal has found that Ms Woodley has engaged in the conduct described in Allegation 2 of sending inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening emails to Ahpra officers, which are inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a registered nurse.
11. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proven conduct under Allegation 2 was serious, as it contravened the Code of Conduct. The conduct involved communicating repeatedly with Ahpra officers in an inappropriate, abusive and threatening manner. The conduct included swearing, derogatory descriptions and fanciful claims of future legal judgments and imprisonment of Ahpra officers.
12. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training and experience and, was inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a health practitioner.
13. The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct under Allegation 2 should be characterised as professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law.

1. The Board has proposed that Ms Woodley should be reprimanded, have her registration cancelled, be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of three years and be prohibited from providing any health service until she is registered as a health practitioner. Ms Woodley has not been in practice since 14 December 2021, when her registration was suspended by immediate action of the Board.
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 a course of behaviour involving public posts on Ms Woodley's Facebook account which were inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a registered nurse, in that, Ms Woodley's statements in the posts contradict and were counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and undermine the national immunisation campaign. The proven conduct also involved, in response to the Board investigating the social media posts, sending inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening emails to Ahpra officers which, are inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of registered nurses. The Tribunal is satisfied that the facts of the case are interwoven to the extent that a global determination should 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:

(a) the purpose of the imposition of determinations is to protect of the public;

(b) determinations are intended 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;

(c) determinations should in no way be punitive;

(d) the objectives of determinations can be achieved by specific deterrence, that is, the deterrence of the person concerned from further inappropriate conduct, by general deterrence, that is, the deterrence of other practitioners minded to conduct themselves similarly, and by facilitation of rehabilitation on the part of the practitioner;

(e) 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;

(f) 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;

(g) 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;

(h) 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

(i) 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 conduct proven under Allegation 1 involved providing information about important health matters outside of Ms Woodley's scope of practice. The information was not balanced or unbiased and does not show an understanding of public health principles including for health promotion, disease prevention and control. Ms Woodley has not ensured that the information is not false or elicits an unwarranted fear in the mind of others. The conduct was contrary to the Code of Conduct. The proven conduct under Allegation 1 is serious.
2. The conduct proven under Allegation 2, involved communicating with Ahpra officers in an inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening manner. The conduct included the use of swearing, derogatory descriptions and fanciful claims of future legal judgments and imprisonment of Ahpra officers. The conduct was not isolated and was contrary to the Code of Conduct. The Tribunal considers the conduct to be serious.

1. The Board submitted that general deterrence was needed in this case due to the seriousness of the conduct. It submitted that the determination needs to act as a deterrent to other practitioners contemplating engaging in conduct of a similar nature. The determination should send a message that such conduct makes a practitioner unsuitable to practice.
2. It was submitted that it needs to be clear to other practitioners that they cannot deal with the regulator in the way Ms Woodley did. The Board submitted that health practitioners cannot post on social media evoking public health concerns with impunity.
3. The Board also relied upon the need to maintain professional standards in framing the proposed determination.
4. The Tribunal finds there is a need for general deterrence to be part of the determination consideration to deter other health practitioners from engaging in such serious conduct. General deterrence is needed in circumstances where the practitioner has provided information to the public that is not balanced or unbiased and does not show an understanding of public health principles, including for health promotion, disease prevention and control. Ms Woodley has not ensured that the information is not false or elicits an unwarranted fear in the mind of others. General deterrence is also needed where the practitioner has acted so poorly in her interactions with the regulator. The profession needs to understand that such serious misconduct will not be accepted. Professional standards need to be preserved.

1. In deciding the need for specific deterrence in making the appropriate determination, issues such as insight, remorse and rehabilitation are relevant.
2. The Board, in summary, made the following submissions on issues relevant to specific deterrence:
   1. Ms Woodley has taken no responsibility for her conduct. She continued to engage in similar conduct after the periods specified in Allegations 1 and 2. She continued to post similar matters on social media and correspond with Ahpra in a similar way, after she had been placed on notice by the Board of its concerns about the conduct and after the Board had taken immediate action to suspend Ms Woodley;
   2. It appears that Ms Woodley is unable to regulate her behaviour;
   3. Ms Woodley has stated that the Board's actions in relation to her registration are of no consequence to her. She snubs her nose at professional regulation; and
   4. Ms Woodley's continued pattern of offending after being placed on notice by the Board of its concerns, shows that she has no insight into or remorse for her conduct. She has remained firm in her views and has doubled down on her views of Ahpra.
3. Ms Woodley did not attend or give evidence at the hearing in this Tribunal. The Tribunal was therefore unable to hear firsthand from her regarding matters relevant to specific deterrence and for that evidence to be tested under cross examination by the Board.
4. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that Ms Woodley has developed insight and remorse for her conduct and has undertaken any efforts at rehabilitation.
5. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it should draw an adverse inference as to Ms Woodley's failure to attend and engage in the proceeding. It is equally open to the Tribunal to conclude that she did not attend the hearing as she was prepared to accept any determination made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that her non-attendance at the hearing is a neutral factor.
6. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that specific deterrence has a significant role to play in the determination, due to the severity and repetitive nature of the conduct and the risk of re-offending, where there is no evidence as to insight, remorse and rehabilitation. It is important for Ms Woodley to very clearly understand that such serious misconduct has consequences in the area of professional regulation.
7. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that there is a significant need to continue to protect the public from Ms Woodley.

Evidence of character and past disciplinary history

1. The Tribunal was not referred to any previous disciplinary history of Ms Woodley in this Tribunal. No character evidence for Ms Woodley was available to the Tribunal.

1. There was no evidence at the time Ms Woodley ceased engagement in this proceeding, that Ms Woodley had a position on the Allegations.

1. In general, caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions as to determinations from previous cases, as each case must be decided on its own merits and the appropriate determination to protect the public is likely to be different in each case.
2. The Tribunal was assisted by the cases referred to by the Board and their submissions regarding those cases.

1. The Tribunal has taken into account the above matters where indicated. In the Tribunal's consideration of the appropriate determination in this case, significant factors include the need for the protection of the public through general deterrence and specific deterrence, the related needs to directly protect the public from the risk of future misconduct of this type by Ms Woodley and to protect the reputation of the profession and professional standards.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that a reprimand is appropriate to denounce the serious misconduct of Ms Woodley in this case.
3. The Tribunal finds that it is necessary to cancel Ms Woodley's registration as a nurse for reasons including general deterrence and specific deterrence, and to preserve public confidence in the profession.
4. The Tribunal considers that a disqualification period on Ms Woodley applying for registration needs to be imposed, due in particular to the reasons set out in the preceding paragraph. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is necessary to impose a disqualification period of three years on Ms Woodley being able to apply for registration as a health practitioner. The Tribunal notes that Ms Woodley has been out of the profession since 14 December 2021, due to suspension. There is no evidence to support a finding that Ms Woodley has used this time to develop insight into and remorse for her conduct or engage in rehabilitation.
5. At the end of the disqualification period, Ms Woodley will need to apply to the Board if she seeks to be registered. The Board will consider a range of relevant matters when deciding any application.
6. The Tribunal is satisfied that to protect the public from Ms Woodley, and particularly in the circumstances of the seriousness of the proven conduct, the limited evidence as to insight, remorse and rehabilitation, it is necessary to impose a prohibition on Ms Woodley engaging in the provision of health services until she is registered in future.

1. The Tribunal has therefore decided that the appropriate determination in this matter is that Ms Woodley is reprimanded, her registration as a nurse is cancelled, she is disqualified from applying for registration as a nurse for a period of three years from the date of this order and is prohibited from providing any health service until such time as she is registered as a health practitioner.
2. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Ms Woodley's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on her right is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitations on Ms Woodley's Charter rights are lawful, reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter and that none of Ms Woodley's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

1. The Board seeks an order that Ms Woodley pay its costs of the proceeding or alternatively that she be ordered to pay the costs of the adjourned hearing on 28 November 2024 and the two subsequent directions hearings which she failed to attend.
2. The Board applied for costs under section 195 of the National Law, which provides that the Tribunal may make any order for costs it considers appropriate.
3. In relation to the application for costs, the Board submitted that:
   1. Ms Woodley has shown a wanton disregard for the regulatory process and has demonstrated her intention to ignore directions and conditions made by the Board. Her conduct described in Allegations 1 and 2 is in clear breach of the Code of Conduct;
   2. She has failed to engage appropriately in the investigation and referral process; and
   3. For these reasons, her conduct is of a nature that would warrant an award of costs against her.
4. The Tribunal also considered other relevant matters in deciding whether it should make an order for Ms Woodley to pay the Board's costs of the proceeding. These were:
   1. The Tribunal Book produced by the Board was at least twice as long as required. The Tribunal orders were for only documents on which the parties proposed to rely be included in the Tribunal Book. The Board included much irrelevant material and duplicates of many documents;
   2. The Board received a notification of Ms Woodley's conduct regarding Allegation 1 on 10 August 2021. It did not refer the matter to the Tribunal until 17 November 2023. There did not appear to be any taking of witnesses' statements or difficulty gathering evidence, which would have delayed the commencement of the proceeding. All the evidence of the posts was available to the public on Ms Woodley's Facebook page. There was no explanation for this delay;
   3. The Board failed to prove Allegation 3 and 12 of the posts in relation to Allegation 1. If Ms Woodley had contested these matters, she would have had a reasonable basis to do so;
   4. Whether a practitioner engages with a disciplinary proceeding under the National Law or not, the proceeding is required to go to a hearing and for the Tribunal to reach its own conclusions. The final hearing took place in one afternoon. The engagement of the respondent would have been unlikely to reduce the required hearing time; and
   5. The Board's alternative argument was that an order should be made in relation to the costs of the adjourned hearing on 28 November 2024 and the two subsequent directions hearings. The hearing listed for 28 November 2024 was adjourned following an application from Ms Woodley to adjourn to enable her to obtain legal assistance. The order granting the adjournment refers to the Board neither consenting nor opposing the adjournment. In its application for costs the Board did not make any submissions as to the reasons for this adjournment, whether or not the reasons were legitimate and the effects it had on the Board or the progress of the proceeding.
5. The Tribunal is not necessarily satisfied that a practitioner's failure to engage in the disciplinary process before the Board or in this Tribunal should mean that an order for costs should be made against the practitioner. Further, in circumstances where the stated reasons for the adjournment of the hearing in November 2024 were not challenged by the Board at the time of the adjournment or in the costs application, it is difficult to find much support for a costs order in this adjournment.
6. Ms Woodley's conduct in relation to her interactions with the Board and the Board's lawyers have been very poor. However, the Board has been far from completely successful in proving factual matters in this proceeding and its conduct in the preparation of the Tribunal Book, preparing the evidence and the delay in making the referral to the Tribunal, left much to be desired, and further, the length of the final hearing was the equivalent of what was to be expected if Ms Woodley had engaged and agreed to the facts, characterisation and determinations. In those circumstances, the Tribunal has decided it is not appropriate to make an order for costs in this proceeding.

The allegations in respect of Claire Woodley (Ms Woodley) 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) are:

1. That Ms Woodley engaged in:

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

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

in that, between 15 November 2021 and 4 June 2022, Ms Woodley made public posts on her Facebook account which, either individually or taken together, are inconsistent with the professional values and/or qualities required and/or expected of a registered nurse, in that Ms Woodley's statements in the posts contradicted or were counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign or messaging and/or had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and/or undermine the national immunisation campaign.

(i) At all material times, Ms Woodley was a registered nurse.

(ii) On various occasions between 9 November 2021 and 4 June 2022, Ms Woodley posted content on the Facebook page 'Claire Woodley' (Social Media Posts).

(iii) The Social Media posts were made open to public viewing (i.e. Facebook users who were not 'friends' of Ms Woodley could access her page and view the Social Media Posts);

(iv) Ms Woodley had a business website at the time which referred to her experience as a nurse;

(v) The Social Media Posts the subject of Allegation 1 are particularised in Schedule A and include, but are not limited to, content that:

• (A) contradicted or were counter to the public health response to the COVID-19 public health campaign or messaging, including:
  • (I) 'Don't get the B#%STER Jab! Don't do it! Wana feel really fucking sick? You've been conned. That's all for today';
  • (II) 'How's that booster shot working out for ya ? It's a medication not a V#%*ine. You have been majorly conned. The un-waxed are all healthy and well. Wake the hell up Australia out of your self centred selfishness. You have nothing CLOSE to freedom. You are a SLAVE';
  • (III) 'Government Health Advice. Avoid sunlight and fresh air as much as possible. Trap bacteria and germs on your face for 8 hours a day. Watch television news propaganda daily. Instil a sense of anxiety and fear in your children. Get injected with untested vaccines';
  • (IV) 'Vaccinated people dying from Covid doesn't mean vaccines don't work. Yes the fuck it does';
• (B) had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and/or undermine the national immunisation campaign, including:
  • (I) sharing content that encouraged people to '[t]ake off the mask smell the bullshit';
  • (II) sharing content that stated '[y]ou cannot catch a fatal disease by walking past someone in a shop. Get a grip you absolute lunatics.'; and
  • (III) sharing content that stated '[t]housands of kids suffering from heart damage (myocarditis and elite athletes dropping dead on the field all over the world... don't worry though its totally 'safe' and very effective and reducing the global population'.

(vi) The conduct of Ms Woodley set out at particulars 1(i) to (v) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Ms Woodley by the public or by Ms Woodley's professional peers - and is inconsistent with:

• (A) the Code of Conduct for Nurses (Code of Conduct) (effective from 1 March 2018), and, in particular, the aspects of that code particularised below:

Introduction

Individual nurses have their own personal beliefs and values. However, the code outlines specific standards which all nurses are expected to adopt in their practice.

Principle 7.1: You and your colleagues' health

Nurses have a responsibility to maintain their physical and mental health to practise safely and effectively. To promote health for nursing practice, nurses must:

(a) understand and promote the principles of public health, such as health promotion activities and vaccination

Principle 7.2: Health advocacy

In advocating for community and population health, nurses must:

(a) use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and populations

(b) understand and apply the principles of primary and public health, including health education, health promotion, disease prevention, control and health screening using the best available evidence in making practice decisions, and

(c) participate in efforts to promote the health of communities and meet their obligations with respect to disease prevention including vaccination, health screening and reporting notifiable diseases.

• (B) the Board's Position Statement on Nurses, Midwives and Vaccination (October 2016), and in particular, the aspects of that position statement particularised below:

The NMBA expects all registered nurses, enrolled nurses and midwives to use the best available evidence in making practice decisions. This includes providing information to the public about public health issues.

• (C) Ahpra's Position Statement on Registered Health Practitioners and Students and COVID-19 Vaccination (9 March 2021), and in particular, the aspects of that position statement particularised below:

National Boards expect all health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as COVID-19 and vaccination. When advocating for community and population health, health practitioners must also use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as

well as communities and broader populations.

Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.

2. That Ms Woodley engaged in:

(a) professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of 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, between 5 October 2021 and 12 July 2023, Ms Woodley engaged in inappropriate and/or discourteous and/or abusive and/or threatening communications towards Ahpra officers which, either individually or taken together, are inconsistent with the professional values and/or qualities required and/or expected of a registered nurse.

(i) At all material times, Ms Woodley was a registered nurse.

(ii) On various occasions between 5 October 2021 and 12 July 2023 inclusive, in correspondence with Ahpra officers, Ms Woodley made various comments to Ahpra officers that were, either individually or taken as a whole:

• (A) inappropriate and/or discourteous, including:
  • (I) on 5 October 2021, that "[a]ll Nurses are aware of your bullshit illegal gagging and censoring and your time is nearly up. Your criminal demands are of no consequence tome";
  • (II) on 29 October 2021: "I'm not working as a Nurse anymore because of your coercion and illegal vaccination mandates. So please Fuck Off and stop emailing me";
  • (III) on 6 December 2021: "[r]efer to my previous emails entitled 'Cease and Desist ' and if you didn't hear me last email please Fuck Off. I'm very excited about my court case in the near future...when I sue you all for crimes against humanity and seeing you all in jail where you belong";
  • (IV) on 28 July 2022: "...[t]herefore this letter from AHPRA is irrelevant to me and will be deleted immediately by me. All incoming emails from you will also be blocked. I dream and look forward to the day when every single one of you criminally insane traitorous [sic] bastards on the board of AHPRA are tried and convicted for Crimes Against Humanity. Which every single one of you will"; and
  • (V) on 12 July 2023: "Thanks for your letter I decline your invitation to this party as I identify as Colin now, I ama man [emoji] and I have an invisible penis but it works !!!Nobody by the name of Claire Woodley received this letter .She's apparently living in Portugal with her tranny wife."
• (B) abusive and/or threatening, including:
  • (I) on 27 October 2021: "[t]o The Board, I do not consent, nor do I or agree with anything you have written or asked of me. See previous emails I have sent to you with Cease and Desist letters attached.

Your time is very quickly running out. If any of you have a conscience , take my advice and turn yourselves in now . I truly am looking forward to seeing each and every one of you in a jail cell for the rest of your lives for Crimes Against Humanity"; and

• (II) on 15 November 2021: "Hello, all you need to know is that I'm not working as a nurse anymore and will not be working as a nurse until AHPRA removes the vaccine mandates for Nurses and all of you are in jail where you will rot for the rest of your lives... do not

consent to any of your demands and I will not comply with any of your Nazi demands regarding 'Covid Re-Education'. Who the Fuck do you think you are? Injecting a Bio - Weapon into babies 5-11 next I see? Fuck You All. Get used to a padded cell you Bastards."

(iii) The conduct of Ms Woodley set out at particulars 2(i) to (ii) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Ms Woodley by the public or by Ms Woodley's professional peers - and is inconsistent with:

• (A) the Code of Conduct, and, in particular, the aspects of that code particularised below:

Principle 3.3 Effective communication

Positive professional relationships are built on effective communication that is respectful, kind, compassionate and honest. To communicate effectively, nurses must:

...

(e) be non-judgemental and not refer to people in a non-professional manner verbally or in correspondence/records, including refraining from behaviour that may be interpreted as bullying or harassment and/or culturally unsafe.

Principle 4: Professional behaviour

Nurses embody integrity, honesty, respect and compassion.

3. That Ms Woodley engaged in:

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

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

in that, between 21 October 2021 and 14 December 2021, Ms Woodley failed to comply with conditions imposed on her registration by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia.

(i) At all material times, Ms Woodley was a registered nurse.

(ii) On 21 October 2021, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia imposed conditions on Ms Woodley's registration under section 178 of the National Law (Section 178 Decision). The conditions of the Section 178 Decision were, broadly, to undertake education regarding social media use, COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccinations, Law and Ethics and the Code of Conduct. Condition 1 of the Section 178 Decision is:

1. The Practitioner must undertake and successfully complete a program of education, approved by the Ahpra and include a reflective practice report, in relation to Social media use, COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccinations, Law and Ethics and the Code of Conduct (specifically with reference to 3.3 Effective Communication and 7.2 Health Advocacy).
2. Within 21 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must make a nomination to undertake either one on one education or a formal education course...

(iii) On 27 October 2021, the Board advised Ms Woodley of its decision to impose conditions on her registration.

(iv) On 29 October 2021, Ms Woodley emailed the Board stating: "I'm not working as a Nurse anymore because of your coercion and illegal vaccination mandates . So please Fuck Off and stop emailing me."

(v) On 15 November 2021, Ahpra's Compliance team emailed Ms Woodley to clarify Ahpra and the Boards' position on vaccinations. The email also advised Ms Woodley that to comply with condition requirements on her nursing registration, an education nomination needed to be submitted by 17 November 2021.

(vi) On 15 November 2021, Ms Woodley emailed the Board stating, amongst other things, "I do not consent to any of your demands and I will not comply with any of your Nazi demands regarding 'Covid Re-Education'"

(vii) Between 27 October 2021 and 14 December 2021, Ms Woodley did not, at any time, comply with the conditions imposed on her registration.

(viii) On 14 December 2021, an Immediate Action Committee of the Board suspended Ms Woodley's registration.

(ix) The conduct of Ms Woodley set out at particulars 3(i) to (viii) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Ms Woodley by the public or by Ms Woodley's professional peers - and is inconsistent with:

• (A) the Code of Conduct and, in particular, the aspects of that code particularised below:

1.1 Obligations

It is important that nurses are aware of their obligations under the National Law, including reporting requirements and meeting registration standards. Nurses must:

(b) ... recognise that a breach of any restriction would place the public at risk and may constitute unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct

Ms Woodley shared a picture of a tweet made by @DrAdamAneevit stating 'You cannot catch a fatal disease by walking past someone in a shop. Get a grip you absolute lunatics.' Ms Woodley shared that 'This was posted by me a year ago. People are still double masking up and walking around like Zombies. The Programming is DEEP.'

Ms Woodley stated "Please just make it stop" and shared a meme with the words "[t]ake off the mask smell the bullshit".

Ms Woodley shared a link to an article with the headline "UPDATE: A Jaw-Dropping 769 Athletes have Collapsed While Competing Over The Past Year - "Avg. Age of Players Suffering Cardiac Arrest is JUST 23"

Ms Woodley stated 'So many teachers leaving my daughters High School here in Melbourne. All at the same time. How Many Wacky Jabs does it take to wake up a sleeping teacher? I guess for these teachers it was Jab # 3 being COERCED into them. What a Disgrace this country has become. Hold the line. Don't give in to Tyranny and fight for your Freedom and for others. You have to lose things to understand what the true meaning of Freedom is. Get on with it'

Ms Woodley shared a meme of people standing around a coffin with the caption 'Imagine how worse it could have been if he was unvaccinated'.

Ms Woodley shared a meme with the words 'Vaccinated people dying from Covid doesn't mean vaccines don't work. Yes the fuck it does'.

Ms Woodley shared a quote 'One day it will dawn on you that the people you ridiculed and dismissed as conspiracy theorists were just friends and family members who loved you enough to tell you the truth.'

Ms Woodley shared a meme with the words 'When you're going to get toxic chemicals injected into your body to keep you healthy'

Ms Woodley shared a meme by Alec Zeck with the words 'Imposing allopathic medicine upon those who don't want it while also labelling "alternative" medicine approaches that are deeply rooted in ancient cultures spanning the globe as "quackery" & "pseudoscience" is an unacknowledged form of prejudice & harmful western superiority.'

Ms Woodley shared a post by Jannes Esterhuysen dated 10 January. Words included '_So in light of the Vax being available for kids I would like to encourage all my friends who have children to think twice and do your own research.' a_nd 'I did my research and knew my risks and still would not wish this on my worst enemy.'

Ms Woodley shared a picture with the words 'The general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know.'

Ms Woodley shared a quote 'They somehow managed to demonize coughs, sniffles and having no symptoms at all... but normalized strokes, blood clots, neurological disorders and 'died suddenly''.

Ms Woodley shared a meme with the words 'Government Health Advice. Avoid sunlight and fresh air as much as possible. Trap bacteria and germs on your face for 8 hours a day. Watch television news propaganda daily. Instil a sense of anxiety and fear in your children. Get injected with untested vaccines.'

Ms Woodley shared a meme with the words 'Give it up for this hero!'

Ms Woodley posted 'Don't listen to Dictator Dan he is F↓&king Lunatic. You are now Un-WAXXED if you don't get your Boosta...AND MEANWHILE IN THE UK, all mandates have been dropped

Ms Woodley shared a post with the words 'When the truth comes out you can't unvax your' - [rest of post is missing].

Ms Woodley shared a post with the words 'I CANNOT TELL MY KIDS I DID NOTHING! MYOCARDITIS IN USA AGES 12-20. 2019: 4, 2020: 4, 2021: 2,236.'

Ms Woodley shared a meme with the words 'Don't do it! with a comment from Larry Kin dated 20 January 2022 stating '[vaccine emoji x 2] derived Myocarditis up 25% in the 12-17 boys cohort.'

Ms Woodley shared a meme with the words 'We won't really know the long term side effects for maybe 2 years'.

Ms Woodley posted a quote with the words 'So many of you regret taking it. None of us regret not taking it.'

Ms Woodley shared a post by Larry Kin with the words 'Even the virus discriminates against the unvaccinated it doesn't seem to want anything to do with us.'

Ms Woodley posted 'How's that booster shot working out for ya ? It's a medication not a V#%*ine. You have been majorly conned. The un-waxed are all healthy and well. Wake the hell up Australia out of your self centred selfishness. You have nothing CLOSE to freedom. You are a SLAVE.'

Ms Woodley stated 'Be forewarned. This is a fucking experiment. Don't inject your babies [baby emoji]' and shared a Australian Government Department of Health website page. Ms Woodley further commented 'I love how Fartbook comes in and fact checks and blatantly lies about the truth. These Waxines are in TRIAL and have ZERO mid to long term safety data. Why the Hell would you give this to your own child let alone yourself.'

Ms Woodley posted a quote with the words 'When children have almost zero chance of being negatively impacted by CV, but you sacrifice them for the greater good. May God have mercy on your souls, because we won't.'

Ms Woodley posted 'ADRENOCHROME... research it. It's unpleasant to read but imagine how unpleasant it is being a victim of it. It's the key [key emoji] to all of this BS. Wake the fuck up Australia. You are sick because you got jabbed with a computer modelled, gene therapy synthetic spike protein that has completely fucked up your immune system.'

Ms Woodley shared a quote with the words 'My doctor asked me if I have been vaccinated yet. I told him I don't need to be vaccinated because I carry my lucky rock with me. He asked "what does your lucky rock do?" I replied, "the same thing your vaccine does, fuck all".'

Ms Woodley shared a meme of an elephant standing in a room with the words 'The unvaccinated aren't dying'.

Ms Woodley stated 'Don't get the B#%STER Jab! Don't do it! Wana feel really fucking sick ? You've been conned. That's all for today.'

Ms Woodley shared a quote with the words 'Serious question for the parents of 5-11 year olds who are getting their kids the

[vaccine emoji]... What if it does affect fertility? Are you ready for that conversation with your kids 15 years from now when they ask you why they can't have kids?'

Ms Woodley stated 'Un-Jabbed cannot travel... whose spreading the so called next variant then ? Whose getting sick ? Who is in the hospital ? Look at Israel [Israel flag emoji] Pay attention. Who is dying from convid? The jabbed.'

Ms Woodley shared a picture of protesters which stated 'Melbourne packed to the rafters against covid tyranny, flags from every corner of the world in solidarity, Inc the aboriginal flag [hand clap emoji]'. Ms Woodley commented 'Not a mask [smiley face emoji] in sight. I feel so proud [heart emojis]. The Revolution is here ! Welcome to the Great Awakening'

Ms Woodley shared a picture of protesters with signs that read 'Vaxism is the Disease' and 'NOT in our NAME'.

Ms Woodley shared a picture of protesters with the quote 'We're not conspiracy theorists we're the fucking resistance. Stick your new world order up your arse!'

Ms Woodley shared a meme with the words 'Everyone thinks they're gonna "be this guy" when the time comes. But the time came and they aren't'.

Ms Woodley shared a post made by Ay Go Sha, with the caption 'Those of us in the legal profession have been banging on about the fact that you are duped. Everything they are making the employers do is UNLAWFUL. Start informing yourselves and stop consenting.'

Ms Woodley shared a post made by Craig Wise, with the caption 'Every day more evidence comes out on the serious vaccine reactions, when is the government and MSM going to start telling the truth on these dangerous vaccines [angry emoji faces]'.

Ms Woodley posted a meme with the words 'Thousands of kids suffering from Heart Damage (Myocarditis) and Elite Athletes dropping dead on the field all over the world...don't worry though, it's totally 'safe' and very effective at reducing the global population [face emoji]'.

Thanks for your letter I decline your invitation to this party as I identify as Colin now , I am a man and I have an invisible penis but it works !!! Nobody by the name of Claire Woodley received this letter . She's apparently living in Portugal with her tranny wife .

Dear Alana, Please pass this message on to AHPRA Board thank you :

I, Claire Woodley do not Consent to your offer of reading the attached document, therefore including any response to any of your correspondence attached to your email.

I am not a Nurse anymore nor do I intend of ever working as a Nurse ever again in my life. Therefore this letter from AHPRA is irrelevant to me and will be deleted immediately by me. All incoming emails from you will also be blocked.

I dream and look forward to the day when every single one of you criminally insane traiterous bastards on the board of AHPRA are tried and convicted for Crimes Against Humanity. Which every single one of you will.

My favourite song by Dire Straights is called 'Private Investigation'!! Oh so funny ....because it is exactly what AHPRA is under , by powers that you cannot even imagine.

I repeat Cease and Desist all Vaccine Mandates including injecting our babies and children with this Bio Weapon you Bastards

Join the side of God and Christ or suffer the consequences of your criminal actions . Which I am afraid will be much more than a piss weak suspension . Think ....GITMO style accomodation for the rest of your lives.

His Holy Son Jesus Christ And the Holy Spirit Hallelujah

Refer to my previous emails entitled 'Cease and Desist ' and if you didn't hear me last email please Fuck Off.

I'm very excited about my court case in the near future ...when I sue you all for crimes against humanity and seeing you all in jail where you belong .

Hello , all you need to know is that I'm not working as a nurse anymore and will not be working as a nurse until AHPRA removes the vaccine mandates for Nurses and all of you are in jail where you will rot for the rest of your lives .

All correspondence that has been forwarded to me from you , will be used in a court of law at the appropriate time against all AHPRA Board members .

For your CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY , against the good people of Australia.

I do not consent to any of your demands and I will not comply with any of your Nazi demands regarding 'Covid Re‐Education'. Who the Fuck do you think you are ?

Injecting a Bio ‐Weapon into babies 5‐11 next I see ? Fuck You All. Get used to a padded cell you Bastards .

I'm not working as a Nurse anymore because of your coercion and illegal vaccination mandates . So please Fuck Off and stop emailing me

To The Board, I do not consent , nor do I or agree with anything you have written or asked of me . See previous emails I have sent to you with Cease and Desist letters attached.

If any of you have a conscience , take my advice and turn yourselves in now .

I truly am looking forward to seeing each and every one of you in a jail cell for the rest of your lives for Crimes Against Humanity. May God have Mercy on your souls .

Good morning , as stated in my last email all National AHPRA Board Members have been formally served with a CEASE and DESIST letter outlining all of your criminal activity.

All Nurses are aware of your bullshit illegal gagging and censoring and your time is nearly up. Your criminal demands are of no consequence to me.

[1] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) CLR 336 at 362