1. Under section 196(2)(a) of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic), Micheal Tajan is reprimanded.
2. Under section 196(2)(e) of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic), Micheal Tajan's registration as a nurse is cancelled.
3. Under section 196(4)(a) of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic) ('the National Law'), Micheal Tajan is disqualified from applying for registration under the National Law for a period of four years from the date of this order.
4. Under section 196(4)(b) of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic) ('the National Law'), Micheal Tajan is prohibited from providing any health service until he is registered under the National Law.

The Tribunal notes that on 3 January 2025, VCAT ordered:

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

Ms A Dixon of Counsel instructed by Ms L Ashton, solicitor, Minter Ellison Lawyers, and Ms M Le and Ms S Slade from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

1. The Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia ('the Board') has referred to the Tribunal allegations about the respondent registered nurse, Michael Tajan ('Mr Tajan' or 'the respondent'), under section 193 of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic) ('the National Law'). The allegations were that Mr Tajan:
   1. intentionally viewed, used his camera phone to record and showed third parties recordings of other sailors in the United States Navy ('US Navy') in restrooms and civilians in a hostel in Melbourne in various states of undress, performing intimate activities, while the subjects of the observations and recordings were unaware of being observed, being recorded and having the recordings shared and which conduct occurred without the subjects of the observation and recording giving their consent (Allegation 1);
   2. failed to comply with requirements to register and update his registration as a sex offender under the relevant federal laws in the United States of America ('USA') (Allegation 2);
   3. failed to notify the Board in writing of two relevant events, being his conviction of criminal matters in a US Navy Court-Martial and the cancellation of his USA nursing registration by the California Board of Registered Nursing ('CBRN'), within seven days of becoming aware that a relevant event had occurred, in breach of section 130 of the National Law (Allegation 3); and
   4. knowingly making a false declaration to the Board on his registration renewal form by answering 'no' to the question as to whether there had been any changes to his criminal history since his last declaration and knowingly making false declarations in renewing his USA nursing licence with the CBRN, by answering 'no' to the questions as to whether there had been any changes to his criminal history since his last declaration and whether he had served or was currently serving in the military (Allegation 4).
2. Mr Tajan did not attend the hearing. He had provided the Tribunal with an unsigned and undated statement and the Tribunal had a transcript of his interview with the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency ('Ahpra') .
3. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct described in Allegation 1 above, has been proven, save that the aspect of the allegation in relation to observing and recording civilians in a Melbourne hostel has not been proven. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct described in Allegation 2 above, has been proven. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct described in Allegation 3 above, has been proven, save that the aspect of Allegation 3 in relation to Mr Tajan failing to advise the Board of the cancellation of his USA nursing registration by the CBRN within seven days of becoming aware of that event, has not been proven. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct described in Allegation 4 above has been proven, save that the aspect of the allegation in relation to Mr Tajan providing a false and misleading declaration to Ahpra and the Board, has not been proven.
4. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegations 1, 2 and 4, when considered separately, each constitute professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 3, constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law
5. The Tribunal finds that the necessary determinations are the imposition of a reprimand on Mr Tajan, that Mr Tajan's registration with the Board as a nurse be cancelled, that Mr Tajan be disqualified from applying to register for a period of four years from the date of the Tribunal's orders and that he be prohibited from providing any health service until he is registered under the National Law.

1. Following receipt by Ahpra of a confidential notification about Mr Tajan on 13 February 2023, the Board decided on 29 March 2023 to commence an investigation of the notification.
2. On 5 April 2023, the Board took immediate action to suspend Mr Tajan while the investigation was conducted.
3. On 20 December 2024, the Board made a referral to the Tribunal regarding Mr Tajan and attached a Notice of Allegations.
4. On 11 April 2025, the Board filed an Amended Notice of Allegations ('ANOA'). The allegations and particulars contained in the ANOA are reproduced in Schedule 1 to these reasons.
5. On 14 April 2025, pursuant to directions made by the Tribunal, the Board filed a Tribunal Book with the Tribunal.
6. The Board later filed a written outline of submissions, dated 15 July 2025.
7. The matter came on for hearing before the Tribunal on 8 August 2025. The Board relied upon the contents of the Tribunal Book.
8. Mr Tajan did not attend the hearing. The Board relied upon an affidavit of service sworn by a solicitor acting for the Board, to demonstrate that the Board had served on Mr Tajan the referral and NOA, the ANOA, the orders made by the Tribunal and notice of today's hearing.
9. The Tribunal was satisfied on the basis of the affidavit of service and material on the Tribunal file, that Mr Tajan was aware of the proceedings, had been served with the documents to be relied upon by the Board at the hearing and was aware of the time and place of the hearing.
10. During submissions made by the Board at the hearing regarding Allegation 4 of the ANOA, it became apparent that there was an inconsistency between the pleaded allegation and the particulars to that allegation. The Board applied to amend Allegation 4 of the ANOA, to delete the date of 24 March 2019 and replace it with the date of 8 April 2019. Mr Tajan was not on notice of this proposed amendment.
11. The Board submitted that Mr Tajan was on notice as to the alleged events on 8 April 2019 relied upon by the Board, as they are described in the particulars to Allegation 4. The Tribunal also notes that it is not clear from the particulars whether the alleged knowingly false and/or misleading declaration made on 24 March 2019 or 8 April 2019, was in relation to Mr Tajan being charged or convicted of a crime. The Tribunal is not satisfied that at this late stage in the proceedings it should grant the amendment proposed by the Board. The Tribunal therefore refuses the application to amend the ANOA.
12. The Board made submissions on the appropriate findings of fact, the characterisation of any proven conduct and the determinations.
13. The Tribunal reserved its decision. The following are the Tribunal's reasons.

1. In 2014, Mr Tajan completed his Bachelor of Science in Nursing at San Francisco State University, California, USA. On 27 July 2017, he was granted a nursing licence by the CBRN in California, USA. On 31 January 2018, he was first registered in Australia to practice as a nurse.
2. In January 2015, Mr Tajan commenced as a sailor in the US Navy on full time active duty.
3. On 3 April 2019, Mr Tajan pleaded guilty at a US Navy Special Court-Martial and was convicted of offences including indecent recording, indecent viewing and wilfully disobeying a lawful command. The sentence imposed included 90 days confinement with the time not yet served suspended and conditions of supervision, including requirements to register as a sex offender. On 1 July 2019, Mr Tajan was discharged from the US Navy.
4. On 4 June 2019, Mr Tajan signed an acknowledgement of convicted sex offender registration requirements.
5. On 25 June 2019, in completing a declaration to the CBRN to renew his US nursing licence, Mr Tajan answered 'no' to the questions as to whether there had been any changes to his criminal history since his last declaration and whether he had served or was currently serving in the military.
6. On 14 June 2021, in completing a declaration to the CBRN to renew his US nursing licence, Mr Tajan answered 'no' to the questions as to whether there had been any changes to his criminal history since his last declaration and whether he had served or was currently serving in the military.
7. On 22 May 2022, the CBRN revoked Mr Tajan US nursing licence from 23 June 2022.
8. On 18 October 2023, Mr Tajan was indicted in a US civilian Court on a charge of failing to register as a sex offender as required by law. On 11 January 2024, the US Court made an order accepting Mr Tajan's plea of guilty on the basis of a plea agreement. On 10 May 2024, Mr Tajan was sentenced on the charge of failing to register as a sex offender. The sentence included 10 months imprisonment and supervised release with conditions on his release, including registration as a sex offender.

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 -

(a) 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

(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. 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

1. Section 130 of the National Law relevantly 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. Subsection 130(3) of the National Law relevantly provides that 'relevant event' includes:
   1. the registered health practitioner being charged with an offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more;
   2. the practitioner being convicted or found guilty of an offence, whether in a participating jurisdiction or not, punishable by imprisonment; and
   3. the practitioner's registration under the law of another country is suspended or cancelled or made subject to a condition or another restriction.
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] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 362, Dixon J discussed the principle as follows:

The seriousness of an 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 Tajan is considered in light of this principle.

1. The allegations contained in the ANOA were as follows (omitting the Particulars to the Allegations):

1. That Mr Tajan 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;

and/or

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

in that, on dates between in or around 2017 and in or around early 2019, Mr Tajan:

(a) intentionally viewed;

(b) used his camera phone to record; and/or

(c) showed third parties the recordings of,

other sailors in the United States Navy (US Navy) in restrooms and/or civilians in a hostel in Melbourne, in circumstances where the subjects of Mr Tajan's observation and/or recordings were:

(a) in various states of undress;

(b) performing intimate activities;

(c) not aware that they were being observed and/or being recorded and/or having the recordings shared; and/or

(d) not consenting to being observed and/or being recorded and/or having the recordings shared.

...

On or about 18 December 2015, Mr Tajan engaged in:

2. That Mr Tajan 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, from dates between in or around June 2019 and in or around October 2023, Mr Tajan failed to comply with requirements to register and/or update his registration as a sex offender under relevant federal laws in the United States of America (USA), including and/or in breach of:

(a) Title 34 of the U.S.C., sections 20913 (registry requirements for sex offenders) and 20914 (Information required in registration); and

(b) Title 18 of the U.S.C. section 2250 (failure to register).

...

3. That Mr Tajan 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;

and/or

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

in that Mr Tajan contravened section 130(1) of the National Law by failing to give written notice to the Board within seven days after becoming aware that a relevant event had occurred, being that:

(a) on 3 April 2019, he was convicted of the First US Convictions; and

(b) on 23 June 2022, his Registered Nurse License with the California Board of Registered Nursing (CBRN) was cancelled.

...

4. That Mr Tajan 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;

and/or

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

in that, while renewing:

(c) his registration as a registered nurse with the Board on or about 24 March 2019, Mr Tajan knowingly made a false and/or misleading declaration to Ahpra and/or the Board; and/or

his Registered Nurse License with the CBRN on or about 25 June 2019 and on or about 14 June 2021, Mr Tajan knowingly made false and/or misleading declarations to the CBRN.

1. In relation to Allegation 1, the Board relied on evidence contained in the Tribunal Book, including:

1. Mr Tajan's admissions in the interview with Ahpra to some of the conduct described in Allegation 1; 2. The US Navy Criminal Intelligence Service ('NCIS') report of investigation, which states that: 1. Mr Tajan admitted in 2017, he took ten videos without consent of sailors masturbating in the restroom stalls of the Naval Base Guam Library; 2. Mr Tajan admitted that while on leave in Melbourne, Australia, he used a cell phone to record a male taking a shower and another male using the restroom stall. He used these videos for sexual pleasure; 3. Mr Tajan admitted that while aboard the USS Emory S Land, he used his cell phone to record other sailors using the restroom and the videos revealed the sailors' buttocks. Also on USS Emory S Land, he recorded a sailor who was naked while changing clothes in the restrooms; 4. Another sailor had reported that Mr Tajan had shown her videos of a sailor in a bathroom stall and a sailor changing clothes; 5. Mr Tajan admitted that he had visually watched another sailor in the toilet; and 6. On 5 April 2019, Mr Tajan pled guilty at a Special Court-Martial;

1. The criminal history detailed in a document headed Notice of Release/Acknowledgement of Sex Offender Registration Requirements, which states that in February 2019, Mr Tajan wrongfully viewed the private area of another sailor without his consent and under circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy;

1. The Court Martial Report which states that 'At a Special Court-Martial in Guam, GM Michael Y Tajan, USN, pled guilty pursuant to a pretrial agreement to wilfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, indecent recording, and indecent viewing'; and 2. Mr Tajan's notice of release/acknowledgement of convicted sex offender registration requirements, which outlines the date and place of convictions for the three convictions.
2. Mr Tajan made admissions to a number of the relevant facts in his interview with Ahpra. He was not asked in this interview about other matters now put against him by the Board. The Board otherwise relied upon documents provided by the NCIS to prove the conduct described under Allegation 1. The Board conceded that a number of these documents were hearsay evidence. The Tribunal considers that a number of these documents are unreliable as to their contents, as they appear to be merely a summary of the evidence said to have been collected and are expressed in a somewhat vague manner. The only material about the allegations of conduct said to have occurred in a Melbourne hostel is in this category. It is contained in a summary document from the NCIS. The document is the equivalent in Australia of a police summary, which would not be evidence of the facts contained in that document in an Australian court or tribunal. The events in the Melbourne hostel were not raised with Mr Tajan in the Ahpra interview and there is no other documentary evidence or witness statement regarding these alleged events. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied, in the Briginshaw sense, that the Board has proven its case in relation to Mr Tajan alleged conduct said to have occurred in a Melbourne hostel.
3. In relation to the purpose of the conduct of engaging in the observing, recording and re-watching of sailors, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the reference in the NCIS summary document to Mr Tajan admitted that the purpose was sexual pleasure should be accepted as probative evidence of this purpose. The reference is contained in what is stated to be a summary of what Mr Tajan said and is expressed in a vague way. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that on the basis of other proven circumstances, that the conduct was for the purpose of Mr Tajan's sexual gratification. The circumstances include that the actions were of a repeated nature, the continuation of the conduct after action was taken against Mr Tajan by his superior officers in the US Navy, including instructions not to take any recording device into the bathrooms and the confiscation of Mr Tajan's mobile phone, and the other circumstances of the conduct which makes it unlikely to have been a 'joke', as stated by Mr Tajan.
4. Otherwise on the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Mr Tajan has engaged in the conduct alleged in Allegation 1 of the ANOA, being that he intentionally viewed, used his camera phone to record and showed third parties the recordings of other sailors in the US Navy in restrooms in various states of undress, performing intimate activities. He engaged in this conduct while the people being observed were unaware of being observed and being recorded and having the recordings shared and the conduct took place without the sailors' consent. The Tribunal is satisfied that the particulars to Allegation 1 have been proven, save that in relation to particular (iii)(A), the Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct occurred more than once, rather than 10 times as stated. The Tribunal is not satisfied that particular (iii)(B) has been proven. In relation to particular (xii), paragraph (A) has been proven and paragraph (B) is not proven.
5. In relation to Allegation 2, the Board relied on evidence contained in the Tribunal Book, including:
   1. Mr Tajan's admissions to the conduct described in Allegation 2 in the interview with Ahpra;
   2. Mr Tajan's notice of release/acknowledgement of convicted sex offender registration signed by him on 4 June 2019;
   3. Documents obtained from the District Court of Guam regarding the conviction of Mr Tajan for failing to register as a sex offender, including the indictment, the plea agreement, the order accepting the plea of guilty and the judgement enclosing the order for Mr Tajan's imprisonment and supervised release;
   4. Email from the US Marshals Services stating requirements for sex offender registration in the USA, dated 16 November 2023;
   5. Movement details of Mr Tajan into and out of Australia; and
   6. Letter from the California Department of Justice advising Mr Tajan that he is not required to register as a sex offender in the State of California in relation to his 2019 military convictions.
6. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Mr Tajan has engaged in the conduct alleged in Allegation 2 of the ANOA, being that he failed to comply with requirements to register and update his registration as a sex offender under the relevant federal laws in the United States of America.
7. In relation to Allegation 3, the Board relied on evidence contained in the Tribunal Book, including:
   1. Mr Tajan's admissions to the conduct described in Allegation 3 in the interview with Ahpra;
   2. The NCIS report of investigation, which states that on 5 April 2019 (sic), Mr Tajan pled guilty at a Special Court-Martial;
   3. The Court Martial Report which states that, 'At a Special Court-Martial in Guam, GM Michael Y Tajan, USN, pled guilty pursuant to a pretrial agreement to wilfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, indecent recording, and indecent viewing';
   4. Mr Tajan's notice of release/acknowledgement of convicted sex offender registration requirements, which outlines the date and place of convictions for the three convictions; and
   5. The CBRN decision and order dated 24 May 2023, which revoked Mr Tajan's US nursing licence.
8. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Mr Tajan was aware of his conviction on 3 April 2019 by the US Navy Court-Martial. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this conviction was a relevant event for the purposes of section 130 of the National Law and Mr Tajan failed to provide written notice of the event to the Board within seven days of him becoming aware of the event or at all.
9. In relation to the second event, being that on 23 June 2022, Mr Tajan's registered nurse license with the CBRN was revoked. The Tribunal is satisfied that the CBRN made the decision and order on 24 May 2022. The documentary evidence also shows that the order was sent to Mr Tajan at his Californian mailing address. There is no evidence that the order was also sent to Mr Tajan by email.
10. In Mr Tajan's interview with Ahpra, he stated that he had received notice from the CBRN that it was considering revoking his nursing license and he had taken legal advice about the proposed revocation of his license. The advice was that he would likely have his licence revoked unless he engaged in the process with the CBRN. Mr Tajan also told Ahpra that he had not receive a subsequent notice from the CBRN advising that his license had been revoked.
11. It appears from the evidence of Mr Tajan's Australian arrivals and departures in 2022 and 2023, that during this time he was living in Australia and only leaving the country for short periods. There is also evidence in the Tribunal Book of Mr Tajan undertaking periods of short term work in Australia in late 2022. There is no evidence that in 2022 and 2023, Mr Tajan visited the United States to have picked up his mail. At the same time, it appears that Mr Tajan was not working as a nurse in the United States, which would have required him to have regard to his licenced status in that country.
12. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that Mr Tajan was aware that his registered nurse license with the CBRN had been revoked from 23 June 2022. Although, he was expecting the license to be cancelled, after having received an initial letter from the CBRN and consulting a lawyer about the matter, there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to be comfortably satisfied that Mr Tajan was aware that the revocation had occurred. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that Mr Tajan was aware of the revocation of his license for the purpose of giving written notice of this event to the Board.
13. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Mr Tajan has engaged in the conduct alleged in Allegation 3 of the ANOA, in so far as he failed to notify the Board in writing of a relevant event, being his conviction by a US Navy Court-Martial within seven days of becoming aware that the relevant event had occurred, in breach of section 130 of the National Law.
14. In relation to Allegation 4, the Board relied on evidence contained in the Tribunal Book, including:
    1. Mr Tajan's admissions to the conduct described in Allegation 4 in the interview with Ahpra;
    2. The NCIS report of investigation, which states that on 5 April 2019 (sic), Mr Tajan pled guilty at a Special Court-Martial;
    3. The Court Martial Report, which states that 'At a Special Court-Martial in Guam, GM Michael Y Tajan, USN, pled guilty pursuant to a pretrial agreement to wilfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, indecent recording, and indecent viewing';
    4. Mr Tajan's notice of release/acknowledgement of convicted sex offender registration requirements which outlines the date and place of convictions for the three convictions;
    5. Mr Tajan's application to renew his registration with the Board, dated 8 April 2019;
    6. Mr Tajan's undated unsigned statement to the Board;
    7. The CBRN print outs of Mr Tajan's declarations on renewing his US nursing licence; and
    8. The CBRN's final report, dated 15 November 2021.
15. The Board submitted that if Allegation 4 was not able to be amended to delete the date of 24 March 2019 and to replace it with the date of 8 April 2019, the Board would not be able to prove the aspect of Allegation 4 in relation to Mr Tajan making a false and/or misleading declaration to Ahpra and/or the Board. The Tribunal refused to grant the proposed amendment as discussed above. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Board is therefore unable to prove this aspect of Allegation 4.
16. The evidence in relation Mr Tajan's false and/or misleading declarations to the CBRN is clear and compelling. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Mr Tajan has engaged in the conduct alleged in Allegation 4 of the ANOA, to the extent that Mr Tajan made false and misleading declarations on 25 June 2019 and 14 June 2021, in renewing his US nursing licence with the CBRN. The false and misleading statements in each renewal application were by answering 'no' to the questions as to whether there had been any changes to his criminal history since his last declaration and whether he had served or was currently serving in the military.

1. In relation to the characterisation of the proven conduct in Allegation 1, the Board submitted that the proven conduct:
   1. spanned from 2017 to April 2018 and did not occur in practice as a nurse. Some of the conduct occurred after Mr Tajan became registered as a nurse. The characterisation of the conduct does not depend on how many times the conduct was repeated;
   2. was objectively serious and it involved an egregious breach of trust by Mr Tajan as a member of the US Navy. Mr Tajan exploited the vulnerability of his colleagues, when they were occupying spaces reserved for undressing, personal and intimate activities. The proven conduct was pre-meditated and the privacy violations were aggravated by the sharing of the recorded content. Mr Tajan showed a disregard for important values of registered nurses of consent, privacy and personal autonomy;
   3. is criminal in nature. The consequences for Mr Tajan of two of the incidents of observing and recording included a term of confinement and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The proven conduct was contrary to the Code of Conduct for Nurses (2018) ('Code of Conduct'), which states that nurses must not participate in unlawful activity and that unlawful behaviour may be unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct;
   4. occurred over a relatively lengthy period and was repeated after Mr Tajan was given an express directive by his superior officers not to repeat the conduct and had his mobile phone confiscated;
   5. is clearly contrary to the Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia ('Code of Ethics'). The proven conduct was the opposite of the values of integrity, honesty, respect and compassion, which nurses are expected to display;
   6. by Mr Tajan and his continuing to work as a registered nurse, poses a real threat to the profession's good standing and the inherent trust the public has in nurses;
   7. was a lower standard than the community are entitled to expect from nurses in both their professional and personal lives and, in particular, the community would not expect a nurse to participate in criminal conduct of a sexual nature;
   8. was substantially below the expected standards of the nursing profession; and
   9. is comparable in nature to other forms of sexual misconduct which have been found by the Tribunal to constitute professional misconduct under paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct, where such conduct occurred in the personal lives of the relevant practitioners.
2. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 1, involved Mr Tajan engaging in intentionally viewing, recording by use his camera phone and showing third parties the recordings of other sailors in the US Navy in restrooms in various states of undress, performing intimate activities. The subjects of the observations and recordings were unaware of being observed, being recorded and having the recordings shared and was undertaken without the sailors' consent. The proven conduct involved a gross breach of the privacy of colleagues by Mr Tajan and was repeated over a substantial period, even after Mr Tajan was directed by his superior officers to not take a recording device into the restrooms and had his phone confiscated. A part of the proven conduct was established to be criminal in nature by the findings of a US Navy Court-Martial. The proven conduct was contrary to the Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics. It was likely to damage the profession's good standing and was significantly below the standards expected of nurses by the community and the profession. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proven conduct under Allegation 1 was very serious.
3. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that:
   1. The conduct proven under Allegation 1 is conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered practitioner of an equivalent level of training and experience to Mr Tajan within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law; and
   2. The conduct proven under Allegation 1 is conduct that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a nurse within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law.
4. The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 1 was professional misconduct within the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law.
5. In relation to the characterisation of the proven conduct in Allegation 2, the Board submitted that:
   1. The proven conduct of failing to register as a sex offender as required by law, occurred after Mr Tajan was granted a nursing license in the USA by the CBRN and after he was granted Australian registration as a nurse;
   2. The proven conduct undermined the fundamental purpose of the sex offender registry in the US;
   3. Failing to register as a sex offender in Guam constituted a criminal offence. Mr Tajan pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to register in Guam and was sentenced to ten months imprisonment;
   4. The proven conduct was continuing, as Mr Tajan failed to register in the period from 4 June 2019 to 18 October 2023;
   5. The failure to register as a sex offender as legally required is clearly inconsistent with the expectation in the Code of Conduct that nurses not participate in unlawful behaviour. It undermines the reputation of the nursing profession and is inconsistent with community expectation; and
   6. The proven conduct was substantially below the expected standards of the nursing profession.
6. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 2, involved Mr Tajan failing to comply with requirements to register and update his registration as a sex offender under the relevant federal laws of the USA. The proven conduct was criminal and was contrary to the Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics. It continued over a period of years and was intentional and not inadvertent or due to error. The conduct was likely to damage the profession's good standing and was significantly below the standards expected of nurses by the community and the profession. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proven conduct under Allegation 2 was very serious.
7. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that:
   1. The conduct proven under Allegation 2 is conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered practitioner of an equivalent level of training and experience to Mr Tajan within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law; and
   2. The conduct proven under Allegation 2 is conduct that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a nurse within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law.
8. The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 2 was professional misconduct within the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law.
9. In relation to the characterisation of the proven conduct under Allegation 3, the Board submitted that:
   1. The conviction and sentence to a term of imprisonment received by Mr Tajan for his criminal offending, was a relevant event for the purpose of section 130 of the National Law;
   2. It should have been obvious to Mr Tajan that the conviction and sentence would be relevant to the Board's assessment of his fitness to practice as a nurse in Australia; and
   3. Although a breach of section 130 will not always result in a finding of professional misconduct, it was submitted that this is a case in which a finding is appropriate due to Mr Tajan's deliberate failure to notify, and the seriousness of the matters Mr Tajan failed to report.
10. In relation to the characterisation of the proven conduct in Allegation 3, Mr Tajan stated in his Ahpra interview that his failure to report the criminal charges to the Board was a result of shame about his actions, immaturity and a lack of understanding of the impact they had on others and the ramifications for himself and his career.
11. Section 130 of the National Law contains an important obligation for practitioners to notify the Board of relevant events. Relevant events include changes in a practitioner's criminal history. The obligation to report such changes are an important mechanism for the Board to become aware of conduct which may affect a practitioner's fitness to practice. This case is an example of the long periods which the Board can be unaware of relevant events, if a practitioner does not meet their obligation to report. The Board's role in protecting the public and maintaining professional standards can be adversely affected by failures to report relevant events.
12. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the conduct proven under Allegation 3 is conduct of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Mr Tajan by the public and his professional peers within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law.
13. The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 3 was professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law.
14. In relation to the characterisation of the proven conduct in Allegation 4, the Board submitted that:
    1. Mr Tajan admitted in his Ahpra interview making false declarations to the CBRN. He stated that he did not update the CBRN, as he was scared he would not be able to practice again; and
    2. The false declarations were deliberately dishonest and were made by Mr Tajan to avoid the consequences of his prior conduct. The proven conduct created a high risk that Mr Tajan's prior history would not be detected by the CBRN.
15. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the making of false declarations to a regulator, such as the CBRN, are a serious matter at any time. A false declaration regarding the practitioner's criminal history is even more serious. The criminal charges against Mr Tajan were serious. The effect of the false declaration was that the Californian regulator was deprived of the opportunity to discover Mr Tajan's criminal charges.
16. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 4:
    1. is conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience to Mr Tajan within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law; and
    2. is conduct that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a nurse within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law.
17. The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the proven conduct described in Allegation 4 was professional misconduct within the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law.

1. The Board seeks determinations for the imposition of a reprimand, the cancellation of Mr Tajan's registration, that Mr Tajan be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of six years and that he be prohibited from providing any health service until he obtains registration as a health practitioner.
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 that the proven conduct is constituted by a course of behaviour by Mr Tajan of observing and recording sailors in showers and toilet cubicles while serving in the US Navy, failing to register as sex offender as required by US law, failing to report criminal charges to the Board within seven days of becoming aware of the charges and making false statements regarding his criminal history and military service to the CBRN, in his renewals of registration. The Tribunal is satisfied that the facts of the case are interwoven to the extent that a global determination should be applied in this case.
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) (Corrected) [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, 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;

(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 proven conduct as described under Allegation 1, involved Mr Tajan observing and recording sailors in showers and toilet cubicles and sharing the recordings while serving in the US Navy. The Board submitted that the conduct is particularly concerning as it involved repeated sexual misconduct of a criminal nature and constituted a serious violation of the privacy and autonomy of the victims.
2. The Board submitted that the proven conduct as described under Allegation 2, involved Mr Tajan failing to register as a sex offender in Guam as required by US law. The Board submitted that the proven conduct is objectively serious as recognised by the ten month term of imprisonment imposed on Mr Tajan. Mr Tajan circumvented a scheme designed to ensure protection of the public. The Board submitted that the conduct is below the standard of conduct that is to be expected from a registered nurse.
3. The Board relevantly submitted that the proven conduct as described in Allegation 3, involved Mr Tajan deliberately failing to notify the Board of a relevant event and Allegation 4, involved Mr Tajan deliberately misleading the CBRN. The Board submitted that the conduct is serious and that at the time of the proven conduct, Mr Tajan appreciated his situation and ought to have appreciated the protective function being performed by the regulators.
4. The Tribunal has made findings regarding the seriousness of the conduct above.

1. The Board submitted that general deterrence is important to the Tribunal's determinations to deter other health practitioners from engaging in similar conduct. It submitted that due to the gross invasion of privacy inherent in the proven conduct, other practitioners need to be deterred from engaging in similar conduct by the weight of the period of disqualification. The Board also submitted that in light of Mr Tajan's history, he poses a risk of future misconduct and the proposed determinations would fulfil the key objective of protection of the public.
2. The Tribunal finds there is a need for general deterrence to be part of the determination consideration to deter other practitioners from engaging in such serious improper conduct. The determination is to indicate to other nurses that they must ensure they do not violate the privacy and autonomy of others whether in their practice or otherwise, they do not fail to comply with the law and particularly important aspects of the criminal law for the protection of the public, they do not fail to report criminal charges as required by section 130 of the National Law or they do not provide false declarations to the regulators regarding their criminal history.

1. In deciding the need for specific deterrence in making the appropriate determination, issues such as insight and remorse are relevant.
2. Mr Tajan's statement to the Board relevantly included the following:
   1. His reason for not declaring his criminal history to the Board on registration was due to shame for his past actions;
   2. The criminal conduct was the result of immaturity and a lack of understanding of the impact his actions had on others and ramifications for himself and his career;
   3. He has the deepest remorse and makes the sincerest apologies for providing the false declarations about his criminal history. Mr Tajan understands that as a registered nurse, he needs to uphold professional boundaries and the integrity of the profession. He endeavours always to be truthful and behave honestly in his practice, especially as a nurse dealing with patients, who are at their most vulnerable and rely on the honesty and integrity of the care provided to them. Mr Tajan understands the qualities that he failed to show the Board and he regrets this;
   4. He cried tearfully from his heart because he now fully understands the importance of the role the Board undertakes to ensure public safety and professional integrity. He now understands that he compromised himself and the Board from his lack of honesty. He only has himself to blame;
   5. The criminal charges he faced were as a direct result of his poor decisions from his immature conduct and behaviour during his 'young and dumb' days of minimal regard to the consequences for others and how his behaviour might affect him in future. What seemed to him like a 'playful joke' was a breach of someone's privacy and integrity;
   6. Mr Tajan is extremely remorseful for his past poor judgment and the impacts it has had on others;
   7. He has paused and reflected on his past conduct and poor decisions. It is with absolute hindsight that Mr Tajan understands he should never have done what he did, it was immature and unprofessional, it cost him his integrity and he takes full responsibility for his actions;
   8. Through the events that followed his conduct, he has gained valuable insight;
   9. Mr Tajan is self-rehabilitating by attending counselling services with the Nursing and Midwifery Health Program Victoria. He understands that it is important in the long term that he develop a deeper understanding of his actions and develop strategies to cope with the situation; and
   10. Mr Tajan acknowledges that what he did was wrong and hopes to work on rebuilding trust with the Board. He proposed to undertake a Law and Ethics course with the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation scheduled for July 2023.
3. The Board submitted that Mr Tajan's conduct was ongoing for an extended period. Some of the conduct continued after he became aware that he was being investigated by the CBRN. The Board submitted that there is a clear need for specific deterrence, which would be affected by the proposed determinations. It submitted that this case may be distinguished from previous cases of sexual misconduct and/or invasion of privacy, where a person is convicted and then commits a further offence. However, in this case Mr Tajan was caught and reprimanded by his US Navy superior officers and continued to engage in the proven conduct. The repeated nature of the conduct is relevant to the need for specific deterrence.
4. The Board submitted that the sequence of events is also relevant to the need for specific deterrence in this case. Following the proven conduct described in Allegation 1, Mr Tajan sought to avoid the consequences of his conduct by failing to register as a sex offender, making false statements to the CBRN and failing to report the criminal history to the Board, as required by the section 130 of the National Law.
5. The Tribunal has found above that the proven conduct under Allegation 1 was for a sexual purpose and not as a 'joke' by Mr Tajan. However, Mr Tajan in his Ahpra interview and his statement to the Board, has maintained that the proven conduct was a 'joke'. Mr Tajan has also stated that the proven conduct was due to a lack of maturity. He was in his late 20s at the time of the proven conduct under Allegation 1. A lack of maturity is not an acceptable reason for a person at that age. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tajan's stated position is an indication that he has continued to seek to minimise his conduct and avoid the full consequences of his conduct. He has therefore not shown significant insight and remorse for the proven conduct.
6. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that there is a need for the determination to take into account specific deterrence.

1. The Board submitted that Mr Tajan's proven conduct is entirely inconsistent with community expectations of registered health practitioners. The community would be righty concerned that a registered nurse was engaged in the proven conduct in this case.
2. The Board also submitted that such serious and sustained misconduct by a registered nurse has the potential to adversely impact the reputation of the nursing profession and bring it into disrepute. The proposed determinations would protect the reputation of the profession by reassuring the public that such conduct will not be tolerated.
3. The Tribunal finds that the determinations need to protect the reputation of the profession by indicating that such serious misconduct will not be tolerated.

Evidence of character and past disciplinary history

1. The Tribunal was not referred to any previous disciplinary proceedings against Mr Tajan in the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal Book contained a number of character references for Mr Tajan. None of these references contain an acknowledgement that the writer was aware of the Allegations in this proceeding. The Tribunal finds that without the references noting that the writers were aware of the Allegations, the references can carry little weight.

1. Mr Tajan admitted the majority of the proven conduct during the interview with the Ahpra investigators. He did not take part in the Tribunal proceeding, save for providing a written statement in which he makes a number of admissions. There were some important matters which have been proven that Mr Tajan did not admit. Some other matters he was not asked about during the Ahpra interview.

1. In general, the Board accepted that caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions as to determinations in 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 Board correctly noted that a number of the previous cases referred to could be distinguished from the present case by the facts of the cases, such as the previous cases included allegations of sexual conduct being directed against children or patients. The Tribunal also notes that in some cases referred to by the Board, global determinations were imposed for a number of proven allegations, which makes it difficult to discern the specific determination for a particular proven allegation in those cases.
3. Despite these reservations, the Tribunal was assisted by the cases raised by the Board and its submissions regarding those cases.

1. The Tribunal has taken into account the above matters and particularly due to the seriousness of the conduct and the need for specific and general deterrence in this case, it considers it is appropriate to impose a reprimand on Mr Tajan to denounce his serious conduct in this case. It is well understood that a reprimand is not a trivial determination. For a professional person it has the potential for serious adverse implications.[2] It tells the public and other practitioners that the standards expected of a practitioner have not been met and that the practitioner has been censured.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is a need to cancel Mr Tajan's registration due to the seriousness of the proven conduct, to protect the reputation of the profession and the need for specific deterrence and general deterrence. For the same reasons, the Tribunal considers that a disqualification period should be imposed on Mr Tajan applying to be registered as a nurse in Australia. The Board proposes a period of six years disqualification. Considering all relevant matters and the previous cases which the Board referred the Tribunal to, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that a period of four years is needed in this case for the purposes discussed above.
3. The Board also seeks an order prohibiting Mr Tajan from providing any health service until he is registered under the National Law. The Tribunal considers that for the protection of the public in the circumstances of this case, taking into account Mr Tajan's history, an order is needed to prohibit Mr Tajan from providing any health services until he is registered as a health practitioner.

1. The Tribunal has therefore decided that the appropriate determinations in this matter are to reprimand Mr Tajan, cancel Mr Tajan's registration as a practitioner, disqualify Mr Tajan from applying to be registered as a health practitioner for a period of four years from the date of the order and prohibit Mr Tajan from providing any health services until he is registered as a health practitioner.

The allegations in respect of Michael Tajan (Mr Tajan) 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:

(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, on dates between in or around 2017 and in or around early 2019, Mr Tajan:

other sailors in the United States Navy (US Navy) in restrooms and/or civilians in a hostel in Melbourne, in circumstances where the subjects of Mr Tajan's observation and/or recordings were:

(c) not aware that they were being observed and/or being recorded and/or having the recordings shared; and/or

(d) not consenting to being observed and/or being recorded and/or having the recordings shared.

(i) Mr Tajan obtained registration with the Board as a registered nurse on 31 January 2018.

(ii) Mr Tajan was a sailor in the US Navy from in or around July 2015 to on or about 3 July 2019.

(A) on approximately 10 occasions while on active duty with the US Navy, intentionally viewed and/or used his camera phone to record other sailors in the US Navy who were masturbating in the bathrooms of the Naval Base Guam library; and/or

(B) while on leave from the US Navy and travelling in Melbourne, Australia, intentionally viewed and/or used his camera phone to record civilians staying in a hostel, one of whom was using the bathroom and another who was taking a shower.

(iv) In or around early 2018, while on active duty with the US Navy and located in the head aboard the USS Emory S. Land, Mr Tajan intentionally viewed and/or used his camera phone to record two other sailors in the US Navy, in circumstances where:

(A) the first sailor was using the restroom and the recorded video revealed his buttocks; and/or

(B) the second sailor was nude and changing clothes.

(v) On a date in or around 2018, while on active duty with the US Navy and located in the head aboard the USS Emory S. Land, Mr Tajan intentionally viewed another sailor in the US Navy masturbating.

(vi) On or about 16 October 2018, Mr Tajan was interviewed by the United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) in relation to allegations that he had made non-consensual recordings of nude sailors in or around April 2018.

(vii) In or around late 2018, and in any event prior to the events in particular (vi), Mr Tajan's phone was confiscated and he was directed by the Commanding Officer on the USS Emory S. Land not to enter a restroom with a recording device, or words to that effect.

(viii) Within several weeks after Mr Tajan received the direction in particular (vii), on occasions in or around early February 2019 and while at the Liberty Center aboard Naval Base Guam, Mr Tajan intentionally visually observed and/or used his camera phone to record other sailors in the restroom stalls of the Liberty Center.

(ix) Mr Tajan would sometimes show the recordings he made to others, including that in or around February or March 2018, while on the USS Emory S. Land, Mr Tajan showed a female sailor, Ms VR, the recordings he made when recording the sailors in particular (iv).

(x) The conduct in particulars (iii) to (v), (viii) and (ix) occurred in circumstances where the subjects of Mr Tajan's visual observation and/or recordings were:

(C) not aware that they were being observed and/or recorded; and/or

(D) not consenting to being observed and/or recorded.

(xi) Mr Tajan most commonly held his camera phone over or under the dividers of the bathroom stalls in order to record the other sailors.

(xii) The conduct of Mr Tajan set out at particulars (iii) to (v) and (viii) was for purposes including:

(A) the sexual pleasure Mr Tajan derived from watching the subjects and/or recording the subjects and/or re-watching the recordings; and/or

(B) as an ostensible 'joke', when he showed the recordings made to others.

(xiii) On or about 3 April 2019, Mr Tajan pleaded guilty to and was convicted by a Special Court-Martial in Guam of:

(A) 1 charge under Title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 890, Art. 90, which relates to Mr Tajan, on or about 13 February 2019, while onboard Naval Base Guam, wilfully disobeying the lawful command referenced at particular (vii);

(B) 2 charges under Title 10 of the U.S.C. s 920c, Art. 120c (other sexual misconduct), namely:

(I) 'indecent recording': On or about January 2018, knowingly make a Naval Base Guam recording of the private area of SN C.S., without his consent and under circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy; and

(II) 'indecent viewing': On or about February 2019, wrongfully view the private area of SN A.P. without his consent and under circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, together, the First US Convictions.

(xiv) The First US Convictions were punishable by, among other things, confinement.

(xv) In respect of the First US Convictions, Mr Tajan was sentenced to 90 days confinement and a reduction in rank from paygrade E-4 to E-1, albeit that the balance of the confinement (48 days having been served) was suspended. Mr Tajan was discharged from the US Navy.

(xvi) The conduct of Mr Tajan set out at particulars (iii) to (xiii) is, either individually or taken together, of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Mr Tajan by the public or by Mr Tajan's professional peers - and is inconsistent with:

(A) the Board's Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses (effective from 7 May 2013 to 28 February 2018) (the 2013 Code), including:

(I) nurses maintain and build on the community's trust and confidence in the nursing profession (Conduct Statement 9); and/or

(II) the unlawful and unethical actions of nurses in their personal lives risk adversely affecting both their own and the profession's good reputation and standing in the eyes of the public. If the good standing of either individual nurses or the profession were to diminish, this might jeopardise the inherent trust between the nursing profession and the public necessary for effective therapeutic relationships and the effective delivery of nursing care (Conduct Statement 9.2).

(B) the Board's Code of Conduct for Nurses (effective from 1 March 2018) (the 2018 Code), including:

(I) 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 (Principle 1.2);

(II) Nurses must... 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 (Principle 1.2(c)); and/or

(III) Professional behaviour: nurses embody integrity, honesty, respect and compassion (Principle 4).

(C) the International Council of Nurses' Code of Ethics for Nurses (effective 7 May 2013 to 28 February 2018) (the 2013 Code of Ethics), including:

(I) the nursing profession recognises the universal human rights of people and the moral responsibility to safeguard the inherent dignity and equal worth of everyone. This includes recognising, respecting and, where possible, protecting the wide range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights that apply to all human beings (p 1); and/or

(II) nurses value respect and kindness for self and others, including valuing respect for self and others encompasses valuing the moral worth and dignity of oneself and others (Value Statement 2) (p 3).

(D) the International Council of Nurses' Code of Ethics for Nurses (effective 1 March 2018 to 9 November 2021) (the 2018 Code of Ethics), including:

(I) inherent in nursing is a respect for human rights, including cultural rights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated with respect (Preamble, p 1);

(II) the nurse demonstrates professional values such as respectfulness, responsiveness, compassion, trustworthiness and integrity (Element 1); and/or

(III) the nurse at all times maintains standards of personal conduct which reflect well on the profession and enhance its image and public confidence (Element 2).

(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, from dates between in or around June 2019 and in or around October 2023, Mr Tajan failed to comply with requirements to register and/or update his registration as a sex offender under relevant federal laws in the United States of America (USA), including and/or in breach of:

(a) Title 34 of the U.S.C., sections 20913 (registry requirements for sex offenders) and 20914 (Information required in registration); and

(b) Title 18 of the U.S.C. section 2250 (failure to register).

(i) Mr Tajan obtained registration with the Board as a registered nurse on 31 January 2018.

(ii) Mr Tajan was a sailor in the US Navy from in or around July 2015 to on or about 3 July 2019.

(iii) As a result of the First US Convictions, from on or about 3 April 2019 Mr Tajan was made subject to various sex offender registration requirements under federal law in the USA, which included requirements that he:

(A) register in each jurisdiction where he resides, is an employee and is a student; and/or

(B) initially register in the jurisdiction in which he was convicted if such jurisdiction is different from the jurisdiction of residence.

(iv) On 4 June 2019, Mr Tajan signed a Notice of Release / acknowledgement of convicted sex offender registration requirements form in which he acknowledged that:

(A) 'I was informed that upon my release from confinement or military service, I am subject to registration requirements under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) as a sex offender within 72 hours in any state, territory, or tribal nation, in which I will reside, be employed, carry on a vocation, or be a student.';

(B) 'I understand that I must also register at least 21 days prior to any international travel';

(C) 'I acknowledge I have been informed that every change in my local address must be reported in the manner provided by state or tribal law';

(D) 'I have been informed that if I move to another state, I must report the change of address to the responsible agency in the state I am leaving, and comply with the registration requirements in the new state of residence'; and/or

(E) 'I have been advised and understand that if I do not register and/or change or update such information as required by a relevant state, tribal or territorial sex offender registration program, my failure to comply with these requirements could result in such penalties as revocation of parole/MSR or prosecution under Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2250), punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.'.

(A) upon residing in Guam following his release from military service on 3 July 2019 and/or on a subsequent trip or trips to Guam occurring in the period between in or around July 2019 and in or around October 2023, failed to comply with relevant notification and/or registration requirements in Guam;

(B) upon residing in California from in or around early July 2019 to in or around 31 July 2019, failed to comply with relevant notification and/or registration requirements; and/or

(C) otherwise failed to comply with relevant notification and/or registration requirements in any jurisdictions in which he resided on his various trips from Australia to the USA, namely the trips occurring:

(III) between 3 November 2021 and 26 November 2021;

(vi) Mr Tajan failed to provide information relating to his intended travel outside of the USA on the dates specified in particular (v)(C).

(vii) In or around early May 2024On or about 11 January 2024, Mr Tajan pleaded guilty to and was convicted in the District Court of Guam of a charge or charges of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender under Title 18 of the U.S.C., section 2250(a) (Second US Conviction).

(viii) Under Title 18 of the U.S.C. section 2250, convictions of knowingly failing to register as a sex offender, or knowingly failing to provide information relating to intended travel in foreign commerce, are punishable by a fine or imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both.

(ix) In respect of the Second US Conviction, on or about 7 May 2024, Mr Tajan:

(A) was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment with credit for time served (approximately 15 days); and/or

(B) was made subject to five years of supervised release following imprisonment with conditions (Conditions of Supervision) including that he:

(I) not commit another federal, state, or local crime;

(II) comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender registration agency in the location where Mr Tajan resides, works, is a student, or were convicted of a qualifying offense;

(III) participate in a mental health specific assessment;

(IV) participate in a mental health treatment program and follow the rules and regulations of that program; and/or

(V) perform 50 hours of community service in lieu of a fine and at the direction of the U.S. Probation Office, to be suspended if Mr Tajan is gainfully employed full-time; and/or

(C) was ordered to pay a mandatory $100.00 special assessment fee.; and/or

(D) was ordered to register with the Sex Offender Registry anywhere he resides, is employed, or is in school.

(x) On 6 December 2024 the Conditions of Supervision were amended such that, among other things Mr Tajan:

(A) was made subject to several conditions with respect to his use of the computer and internet;

(B) was required to participate in sex offender-specific treatment as directed by the probation officer; and/or

(C) was required submit to polygraph testing as recommended by the treatment provider.

(xi) The conduct of Mr Tajan set out at particulars (v) to (x) (ix) is, either individually or taken together, of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Mr Tajan by the public or by Mr Tajan's professional peers - and is inconsistent with:

(I) Nurses must... abide by any reporting obligations under the National Law and other relevant legislation (Principle 1.1(a));

(II) 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 (Principle 1.2);

(III) Nurses must... 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 (Principle 1.2(c)); and/or

(IV) Professional behaviour: nurses embody integrity, honesty, respect and compassion (Principle 4).

(B) the International Council of Nurses' Code of Ethics for Nurses (effective 1 March 2018 to 9 November 2021) (the 2018 Code of Ethics), which provides that:

(I) the nurse demonstrates professional values such as respectfulness, responsiveness, compassion, trustworthiness and integrity (Element 1); and/or

(II) the nurse at all times maintains standards of personal conduct which reflect well on the profession and enhance its image and public confidence (Element 2).

(C) the International Council of Nurses' Code of Ethics for Nurses (effective from 9 November 2021) (the 2021 Code of Ethics), which provides that:

(I) Nurses demonstrate professional values such as respect, justice, responsiveness, caring, compassion, empathy, trustworthiness and integrity (Principle 1.8); and/or

(II) nurses maintain standards of personal conduct at all times. They reflect well on the profession and enhance its image and public confidence (Principle 2.5).

(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 Mr Tajan contravened section 130(1) of the National Law by failing to give written notice to the Board within seven days after becoming aware that a relevant event had occurred, being that:

(a) on 3 April 2019, he was convicted of the First US Convictions; and

(b) on 23 June 2022, his Registered Nurse License with the California Board of Registered Nursing (CBRN) was cancelled.

(i) The issuing of a Registered Nurse License by the CBRN is a form of registration under the law of California that provides for the registration of nurses.

(ii) Mr Tajan was granted a Registered Nurse License with the CBRN on 27 July 2017.

(iii) Mr Tajan obtained registration with the Board as a registered nurse on 31 January 2018.

(iv) The Board refers to and repeats particulars (xiii) and (xiv) of Allegation 1 above.

(v) Mr Tajan told the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) that in his experience of confinement it is a prison and/or is 'pretty much...like a prison'.

(vi) On 23 June 2022, Mr Tajan's Registered Nurse License with the CBRN was revoked.

(vii) Although Mr Tajan did not make enquiries as to the status of his Registered Nursing License with the CBRN, Mr Tajan was from in or around mid-2022 relevantly aware that the Registered Nurse License had been revoked, if not because he actually received notice of the CBRN's Default Decision and Order, then because:

(A) he had received a notice from the CBRN, known as an Accusation, which set out that his Registered Nurse License could be suspended or revoked;

(B) he had received legal advice to the effect that if he didn't take any action that the CBRN would cancel his registration; and/or

(C) he stopped receiving other forms of mail from the CBRN, which he inferred meant he no longer held a Registered Nurse License.

(viii) Pursuant to section 130 of the National Law, Mr Tajan was required to notify the Board in writing within seven days after becoming aware that:

(A) he had been convicted of or the subject of a finding of guilt for an offence punishable by imprisonment, whether in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere; and/or

(B) his registration under the law of another country that provides for the registration of health practitioners is suspended or cancelled or made subject to a condition or another restriction.

(ix) Mr Tajan did not at any time notify the Board that he had been convicted of the Convictions or that his Registered Nurse License had been revoked, in circumstances where he actively chose to withhold information about the Convictions and/or the revocation of his Registered Nursing License from the Board.

(x) The conduct of Mr Tajan set out at particular (ix) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Mr Tajan by the public or by Mr Tajan's professional peers - and is inconsistent with:

(I) Nurses respect and adhere to professional obligations under the National Law, and abide by relevant laws (Principle 1);

(II) It is important that nurses are aware of their obligations under the National Law, including reporting requirements and meeting registration standards (Principle 1.1);

(III) Nurses must... abide by any reporting obligations under the National Law (Principle 1.1(a));

(IV) Nurses must... inform AHPRA of charges, pleas and convictions relating to criminal offences (Principle 1.1(e)); and/or

(V) Professional behaviour: nurses embody integrity, honesty, respect and compassion (Principle 4).

(I) the nurse demonstrates professional values such as respectfulness, responsiveness, compassion, trustworthiness and integrity (Element 1); and/or

(II) the nurse at all times maintains standards of personal conduct which reflect well on the profession and enhance its image and public confidence (Element 2).

(I) Nurses demonstrate professional values such as respect, justice, responsiveness, caring, compassion, empathy, trustworthiness and integrity (Principle 1.8);

(II) nurses carry personal responsibility and accountability for ethical nursing practice (Principle 2.1); and/or

(III) nurses maintain standards of personal conduct at all times. They reflect well on the profession and enhance its image and public confidence (Principle 2.5).

(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,

(c) his registration as a registered nurse with the Board on or about 24 March 2019, Mr Tajan knowingly made a false and/or misleading declaration to Ahpra and/or the Board; and/or

his Registered Nurse License with the CBRN on or about 25 June 2019 and on or about 14 June 2021, Mr Tajan knowingly made false and/or misleading declarations to the CBRN.

(i) Mr Tajan was a sailor in the US Navy from in or around July 2015 to on or about 3 July 2019.

(ii) Mr Tajan was granted a Registered Nurse License with the CBRN on 27 July 2017.

(iii) Mr Tajan obtained registration with the Board as a registered nurse on 31 January 2018.

(iv) The Board refers to and repeats particular (xiii) of Allegation 1 above.

(v) On or about 8 April 2019, in Mr Tajan's application to renew his registration with the Board, he responded 'no' to the question, 'Since your last declaration to AHPRA, has there been any change to your criminal history in one or more countries other than Australia that you have not declared to AHPRA?'.

(vi) In Mr Tajan's applications to renew his Registered Nurse License with the CBRN which were submitted on or about 25 June 2019 and on or about 14 June 2021, he:

(A) responded 'no' to the question, 'Since you last renewed your license, have you been disciplined by a government agency or other disciplinary body; or have you been convicted of any crime in any state, the USA and its territories, military court or other country?'; and

(B) responded 'no' to the question, 'Have you served or are you currently serving in the military?'.

(vii) By virtue of the matter referred to in particular (iv), Mr Tajan's declarations referred to in particular (v) and particular (vi)(A) were false.

(viii) By virtue of the matter referred to in particular (i), Mr Tajan's declaration referred to in particular (vi)(B) was false.

(ix) The Board renewed Mr Tajan's registration on the basis of the information provided in particular (v).

(x) The CBRN renewed Mr Tajan's Registered Nursing License on two occasions on the basis of the information provided in particular (vi).

(xi) Mr Tajan made the false declarations in particulars (v) and/or (vi) knowingly, in that he knew by virtue of the matters in particular (iv) and (i) that the declarations were false but in any event sought to convey a contrary position.

(xii) The conduct of Mr Tajan set out at particulars (v) to (vi) is, either individually or taken together, of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Mr Tajan by the public or by Mr Tajan's professional peers - and is inconsistent with:

(I) Nurses respect and adhere to professional obligations under the National Law, and abide by relevant laws (Principle 1);

(II) It is important that nurses are aware of their obligations under the National Law, including reporting requirements and meeting registration standards (Principle 1.1);

(III) Nurses must... abide by any reporting obligations under the National Law (Principle 1.1(a));

(IV) Nurses must... inform AHPRA of charges, pleas and convictions relating to criminal offences (Principle 1.1(e));

(V) Nurses practise honestly and ethically ... (Principle 1.2);

(VI) Cultural practice and respectful relationships: Nurses... foster open and honest professional relationships (Principle 3); and/or

(VII) Professional behaviour: nurses embody integrity, honesty, respect and compassion (Principle 4).

(I) the nurse demonstrates professional values such as respectfulness, responsiveness, compassion, trustworthiness and integrity (Element 1);

(II) the nurse at all times maintains standards of personal conduct which reflect well on the profession and enhance its image and public confidence (Element 2); and/or

(III) the nurse contributes to an ethical organisational environment and challenges unethical practices and settings (Element 3).

[1] The Tribunal made a correction order under section 119 of the VCAT Act on 29 October 2025, to resolve the slip of referring to the 'definition of unprofessional conduct' instead of the 'definition of professional misconduct' in finding 2.

[2] Peeke v Medical Board of Victoria, [1994] VSC 7 at 6.