The respondent submitted that at the time he completed the renewal declaration, he answered the relevant questions honestly, to the best of his knowledge. The respondent told the Tribunal that he did not believe that the criminal charges brought against him, which were later discontinued, amounted to any change in his criminal history and as far as he knew at the time that he completed the declaration, he did so correctly. He also denied the allegations made against him regarding his conduct in the workplace and did not feel that it was appropriate to concede that his right to practise at a hospital had been withdrawn because of his conduct.

The Board submitted that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct. The Board argued that the respondent was recklessly indifferent in his answer about his criminal history and was deliberately deceitful in relation to his answer about workplace conduct. The Board submitted that the respondent made a declaration that was objectively wrong and materially so, such that the declaration was likely to induce error.

Held, finding unprofessional conduct and imposing sanctions:

• The Tribunal decides pursuant to s 196(1) of the National Law that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct, with respect to his answer to question 1 of the Renewal Declaration;
• The respondent is reprimanded.

Health practitioners - Complaint by the Paramedicine Board of Australia - Unprofessional conduct - False and misleading statements to authorities - Reprimand

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 48A, 56

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 ss 5, 38, 55, 77, 79, 82, 109, 130, 193, 196

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545

Greyhound Racing Authority (NSW) v Bragg [2003] NSWCA 388

Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297; (1997) 41 NSWLR 630

Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243

Medical Board of Australia v Alkazali [2017] VCAT 39

Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Smith [2016] SAHPT 4

Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Smith [2016] SAHPT 4

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Rankine [2019] SACAT 57

Paramedicine Board of Australia v Jackson; Physiotherapy Board of Australia v Smith [2025] SASCA 25

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Roberts [2022] SACAT 111

Re Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Ricardo Dela Cruz [1992] FCA 71

Made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010

1. The Paramedicine Board of Australian (Board) referred an allegation about the conduct of a formerly registered paramedic, Mr Ross Jackson (Mr Jackson), to the Tribunal pursuant to s 193(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (National Law).
2. The referral was made on grounds that the Board reasonably believed that Mr Jackson has behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct as defined in s 5 of the National Law.
3. Broadly stated, the allegations related to declarations made by Mr Jackson under s 109 of the National Law in an application for the renewal of his registration on 27 December 2019.

1. The following facts were either agreed, or alternatively not contested, by the parties.
2. Mr Jackson first applied for registration with the Board on 26 November 2018.
3. Mr Jackson was suspended from his employment with SA Ambulance (SAAS) on 30 January 2019 pending the outcome of an investigation into an allegation made about his conduct in the workplace on 6 and 7 January 2019. That decision was confirmed on 31 January 2019.
4. On 6 May 2019, Mr Jackson was charged with four counts of Indecent Assault under s 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and one count of compelled sexual manipulation under s 48A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 in relation to alleged incidents on 6 and 7 January 2019. These charges were not pursued and were withdrawn a relatively short time thereafter.
5. On 22 May 2019, Mr Jackson was granted registration by the Board as a paramedic under s 82(1)(a) of the National Law.
6. On 27 December 2019, Mr Jackson completed an application for the renewal of his registration with the Board online.
7. As part of the application, Mr Jackson completed an annual statement (Renewal Declaration) in accordance with s 109 of the National Law.
8. In the Renewal Declaration, Mr Jackson was asked:

1. Since your last declaration to AHPRA has there been any change to your criminal history in Australia that you have not declared to AHPRA?

1. In the Renewal Declaration, Mr Jackson was asked:

10. During your preceding period of registration, has your right to practise at a hospital or another facility at which health services are provided been withdrawn or restricted because of your conduct, professional performance or health?

1. The Board already knew about the criminal charges that had been laid against Mr Jackson at the time that he completed the Renewal Declaration and had known since at least September 2019. The Board had corresponded with Mr Jackson about its decision to conduct an investigation into associated matters by letter dated 4 December 2019.
2. Mr Jackson had available to him, when completing the Renewal Declaration, access to a definition for 'criminal history' through electronic help notes. If Mr Jackson checked the help notes before answering question 1, he would have seen a definition for 'criminal history' that included: "every charge made against a person for an offence".

1. Mr Jackson gave evidence that is concisely summarised as follows.
2. He denied the allegations made about his conduct in the workplace.
3. Criminal charges were brought against him but dropped soon after. He therefore did not believe that this amounted to any change in his criminal history. It did not change the substance of his police clearance.
4. He did not check whether the use of the term 'criminal history' in question 1 of the Renewal Declaration had any special or defined meaning and therefore, as far as he knew at the time that he answered the question, he did so correctly.
5. He was not stood down from his employment due to his conduct. He was stood down while an investigation was undertaken by his employer into an allegation that had been made against him. This was the circumstance that he was in at the time that he completed question 10 of the Renewal Declaration. He therefore did not feel that it was accurate to answer question 10 in the affirmative, as this could be interpreted as a concession to 'conduct' for which he was maintaining a firm denial.
6. Mr Jackson pointed out that at the time that he completed the Renewal Declaration, the Board already knew about the criminal charges that had been laid against him. He therefore had nothing to gain by being deliberately deceitful.
7. He had resigned as a paramedic and was working in a different industry. He had no desire to resume working as a paramedic.

1. Mr Jackson made submissions that at the time that he completed the Renewal Declaration, he answered questions 1 and 10 honestly, to the best of his knowledge. He therefore sought dismissal of the Complaint.
2. During the Hearing, the Board withdrew paragraph (j)(i) within its Particulars of Amended Complaint insofar as it related to Mr Jackson's answer to question 1 of the Renewal Declaration. In doing so, the Board effectively conceded that Mr Jackson did not deliberately give a false answer to question 1. However, the Board maintained that Mr Jackson was recklessly indifferent to whether the information given to the Board was true in his answer to that question. The Board maintained an allegation of deliberate deceit with respect to Mr Jackson's answer to question 10 and pressed 'reckless indifference' as an alternative finding.
3. In summary, the submissions of the Board were as follows.
4. Considerable care is to be taken in the completion of an annual statement for registration purposes. Accuracy is important.
5. At the time Mr Jackson completed the Renewal Declaration, Mr Jackson was aware of the Board's interest in the criminal history of applicants and practitioners and that this was relevant to registration in the profession. Indeed, he was also aware of the interest that the Board had taken into the criminal allegations that had been brought against him by its earlier correspondence.
6. Mr Jackson made a declaration that was objectively wrong and materially so, such that the declaration was likely to induce error.
7. The definition of 'criminal history' was defined in the National Law, and such definition was readily available to Mr Jackson if he availed himself of the electronic help notes. If he took a moment to check, he would have realised that the term 'criminal history' includes "every charge made against the person for an offence", not just criminal convictions.
8. Therefore, by reference to the definition of criminal history in the National Law, Mr Jackson's declaration on 27 December 2019 was, as a matter of fact, incorrect. Even if it was not knowingly false, it was, on the Board's case, unprofessional in all the circumstances. The relevant standard against which Mr Jackson's conduct is to be assessed is that of a reasonable practitioner in his position.
9. Relevantly, Mr Jackson:

(a) had received notice of his suspension from SAAS;

(b) had sought internal review of the suspension decision from SAAS;

(c) had been personally served notice of the criminal charges;

(d) had access to the help notes providing the definition of criminal history under the National Law when renewing his registration; and

(e) could have obtained the Board's criminal history standard.

1. Failure to make disclosure of a 'relevant event' under s 130 of the National Law, in this instance a failure to notify criminal charges, is a serious matter.
2. The decided cases dealing with such failures establish the following propositions:

(a) a failure to comply with the notification requirements in s 130 of the National Law can be viewed as a 'serious aggravating feature' of professional misconduct;[1]

(b) a claim of ignorance of the requirement to notify of a relevant event is not an excuse;[2]

(c) it is imperative that any registered health practitioner who is charged with a criminal offence notifies the relevant National Board. Without such notification the relevant Board is not in the position to take steps to protect the public and maintain professional standards;[3] and

(d) a failure to comply with notification requirements may indicate that the practitioner has 'scant regard' for their professional responsibilities.

1. The applicable legal principles are summarised below.

1. The referral falls within the Tribunal's original jurisdiction.
2. The function performed by the Tribunal is an administrative function.
3. The Tribunal is to: (a) make findings of fact; (b) assess the practitioner's conduct (as found) against recognised professional standards; and (c) decide what, if any, disciplinary orders ought to be made.
4. The findings and determinations available to the Tribunal are set out in s 196 of the National Law.
5. The purpose of the proceedings, and the taking of any disciplinary action, is to provide for the protection of the public. This is achieved by making orders that will prevent persons who are unfit to practise from practising, secure the maintenance of proper professional standards, and assure the public that appropriate professional standards are being maintained within the relevant profession.
6. The Tribunal must be satisfied of the facts on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the principles discussed in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (Briginshaw).[4] The reasoning in Briginshaw provides guidance as to the quality or strength of evidence that is necessary for the Tribunal to be satisfied of serious allegations.
7. The principle discussed in Briginshaw requires a disciplinary tribunal to reach "a comfortable level of satisfaction, fairly and properly arrived at, commensurate with the gravity of the charge, achieved in accordance with fair processes adopted by such a body".[5]

1. How the Tribunal may decide the matter, and the range of determinations available to the Tribunal, are set out in s 196 of the National Law.
2. The purpose of imposing disciplinary action on a health practitioner is "entirely to protect the public".[6]
3. In Pharmacy Board of Australia v Roberts [2022][7] this Tribunal summarised the applicable principles as follows (references omitted):

1. ln Physiotherapy Board of Australia v Adey [2017] SAHPT 3 at para [36], the SA Health Practitioners Tribunal observed that: ... the imposition of disciplinary action may serve one or all of the following purposes:

• preventing practitioners who are unfit to practice from practising. > > • securing maintenance of professional standards

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

• bringing home to the practitioner the seriousness of their conduct

• deterring the practitioner from any future departures from appropriate standards;
• deterring other members of the profession who might be minded to act in a similar way;
• imposing restrictions on the practitioners' right to practice so as to ensure that the public is protected.

1. ln order to achieve these purposes, the Tribunal should impose disciplinary sanctions that adequately reflect the incompatibility of the misconduct with the fitness of the person to be registered. The disciplinary action should be such as to convey to other practitioners and the general public that such conduct is incompatible with registration and will not be tolerated. The sanction should be sufficient to assure the public that standards within the profession will be maintained and the public will be adequately protected."
2. In assessing the subject conduct: "... the gravity of professional misconduct is not to be measured by reference to the worst cases but by the extent to which it departs from the proper standards. If this were not done, there is a risk that the conduct of the delinquents in a profession will indirectly establish the standards applied by the Tribunal ...".[8]
3. The discipline imposed on a practitioner may require the making of an order with a greater adverse effect on the practitioner than might be warranted if punishment alone were the relevant consideration.[9]

1. The Board pressed for a finding of professional misconduct in all the circumstances of this case.
2. "Professional misconduct" is defined in s 5 of the National Lawas follows:

Professional misconduct, of a registered health 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 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. 'Unprofessional conduct', which comprises part of the definition of 'professional misconduct', is conduct by a registered practitioner of a lesser standard than that reasonably expected by the public or professional peers. The definition in s 5 of the National Law of "unprofessional conduct" relevantly provides:

unprofessional conduct, of a registered health practitioner, 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; ...

1. In considering how to characterise the practitioner's conduct, it is important to bear in mind the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.
2. The gravity of the misconduct is not to be measured by reference to the worst cases, but by the extent to which it departs from proper standards.[10]

Mr Jackson's Answer to Question 1 of the Renewal Declaration

1. The term 'criminal history' of itself can mean different things in different contexts.
2. In the context of this case, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Jackson that at the time that he completed the Renewal Declaration, he assumed and believed that the reference to 'criminal history' in question 1 was directed to criminal convictions. To that extent, he was not deliberately deceitful in his answer to question 1 and the Board properly withdrew that allegation.
3. However, for those registered or applying to be registered under the National Law, the legislature has created a clear intention that the Board must have regard to criminal history. In this context, 'criminal history' is defined in s 5 of the National Law to mean:

(a) every conviction of the person for an offence, in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, and whether before or after the commencement of this law;

(b) every plea of guilty or finding of guilt by a court of the person for an offence, in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, and whether before or after the commencement of this law and whether or not a conviction is recorded for the offence;

(c) every charge made against the person for an offence, in a participating jurisdiction or elsewhere, and whether before or after the commencement of this law. (emphasis added).

1. The Tribunal accepts the submission of the Board that the disclosure and assessment of a registered health practitioner's 'criminal history', as defined, is fundamental to the effective regulation of health professions under the National Law.
2. In particular, the significance of the knowledge of a registered health practitioner's criminal history, and the importance placed by the legislature of the Board's assessment of a criminal history is evidenced by the positive obligation placed on the Board to:

(a) develop a registration standard for a '... matter about the criminal history of applicants for registration in the profession, and registered health practitioners and students registered in a health profession for which the Board is established ...';[11]

(b) consider a criminal history in the assessment of whether a practitioner is, 'in the Board's opinion, an appropriate person to practise the profession ...';[12]

(c) require, in any application for registration under the National Law, an applicant to '... disclose the applicant's criminal history';[13]

(d) require, in any application to renew a registration under the National Law, an applicant to declare 'details of any change in the applicant's criminal history that occurred during the applicant's preceding period of registration'.[14]

1. The legislature has placed these obligations on the Board (and on applicants) to ensure that the Board has regard to an applicant's criminal history in determining an application for registration or an application for the renewal of registration under the National Law.[15]
2. It should be accepted that an applicant's declaration about a change in their criminal history under s 109 of the National Law is fundamental to the operation of the National Law given:

(a) it is directly relevant to any application for registration or renewal of registration;

(b) is a matter that the Board has a statutory obligation to consider when determining any application for registration.

1. The requirement to declare such changes was not, and cannot be considered to be, trivial or inconsequential.[16]
2. As observed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia, "it appears that the registration and renewal processes provided for in the National Law are appropriate mechanisms for addressing conduct or behaviour which occurred when the person was not registered. And to the extent that conduct or behaviour is not disclosed during this process, it may be addressed through a referral under s 193(1)(a)(ii) on the basis that registration was improperly obtained through the provision of false or misleading information."[17]
3. Similarly, circumstances in which a registered health practitioner's practice has been limited by a health services provider, is a matter that a Board needs to be made aware of to ensure that it can fulfil its role to protect the public and consider any action which may be required.
4. Mr Jackson was recklessly indifferent to whether his answer to question 1 of the Renewal Declaration was correct. He did not avail himself of the readily available electronic help notes, which would have made it clear to him before finalising his answer that the question was not just directed to criminal convictions, but also to "every charge made against the person for an offence".
5. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that Mr Jackson's response to question 1 of the Renewal Declaration is most appropriately categorised as "professional conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of a health practitioner", this being unprofessional conduct. In the absence of deliberate deceit, it does not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

Mr Jackson's Answer to Question 10 of the Renewal Declaration

1. The Tribunal finds that Mr Jackson did not answer question 10 incorrectly, and as such, the allegations made by the Board with respect to question 10 are not substantiated.
2. Question 10 was not accompanied by any electronic help notes. The question is specifically worded, and it is directed to 'conduct', as opposed to 'alleged conduct', or 'an investigation into alleged conduct'. If the Board intended that the question include disclosure of a restricted right to practise due to an investigation into alleged conduct, the wording of the question should have made this clear.
3. In circumstances where Mr Jackson had faced criminal charges and had at all material times maintained a denial of the subject workplace 'conduct', answering question 10 in the affirmative could have been misinterpreted as a concession by him that there was 'conduct' and that this was the reason for him being restricted. When Mr Jackson completed the Renewal Declaration, there had been no finding by his employer with respect to 'conduct' - Mr Jackson had been stood down while his employer undertook an investigation into alleged conduct.
4. It would be unfair to Mr Jackson if the Tribunal applied a strict interpretation of the wording in question 1 of the Renewal Declaration and then on the other hand, apply a liberal interpretation to the wording of question 10.
5. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds in Mr Jackson's favour with respect to the accuracy of his answer to question 10 of the Renewal Declaration.
6. Having carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal makes the following orders.

1. The Tribunal decides pursuant to s 196(1) of the National Law that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct, with respect to his answer to question 1 of the Renewal Declaration.
2. The Tribunal imposes the following disciplinary action:
   1. The respondent is reprimanded.
3. The respondent must pay 50% of the reasonable legal costs of the Board, such sum to either agreed or fixed by the Tribunal.

[1] Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Smith [2016] SAHPT 4 at [20]; Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243 at [33].

[2] Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Smith [2016] SAHPT 4 at [21]; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Rankine [2019] SACAT 57 at [27].

[3] Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Smith [2016] SAHPT 4 at [22].

[4] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Rankine [2019] SACAT 57 at [27].

[5] Greyhound Racing Authority (NSW) v Bragg [2003] NSWCA 388 at [35]; Medical Board of Australia v Alkazali [2017] VCAT 39.

[6] Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545 at 551 and 554.

[8] Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297; (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 at 638 [C] and [D].

[9] Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545 at 554.

[10] Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297; (1997) 41 NSWLR 630.

[12] Sections 55(1)(b) and 79 of the National Law,

[13] Section 77(3)(c) of the National Law.

[14] Section 109(1)(c) of the National Law.

[15] Sections 38, 55, 77, 79 and 109 of the National Law.

[16] Re Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Ricardo Dela Cruz [1992] FCA 71 at [13].

[17] Paramedicine Board of Australia v Jackson; Physiotherapy Board of Australia v Smith [2025] SASCA 25 at [77].