This matter arises from an initiating application by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which alleges misconduct by the respondent, a registered pharmacist.
The allegations in this initiating application are not disputed by the respondent and are supported by various documentary evidence contained in the Tribunal Book. The allegations, which we find proved, may be summarised as follows.
The respondent was born in May 1982. He obtained a Bachelor of Pharmacy degree in New Zealand and first obtained registration as a pharmacist in Australia in February 2009, remaining registered until August 2024.
At all material times he was proprietor of a pharmacy in Hindley Street, Adelaide. His registration was suspended by way of immediate action in December 2021 following an investigation into the matters raised in this application.
On 28 April 2023, he was convicted in the District Court of South Australia on two counts of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (the CSA) and one count of possessing a controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to s 33l(1)(b) of the CSA.
The circumstances of the offending were that South Australia Police commenced an undercover operation in September 2021 aimed at detecting unlawful trade in controlled substances from the pharmacy of the respondent. As part of the undercover operation, an undercover police officer, referred to as Daniella, attended the pharmacy on a number of occasions.
On 9 September 2021 the respondent, together with an intermediary, supplied and/or sold Daniella three 2 milligram buprenorphine strips and two 8 milligram buprenorphine strips when she did not have a valid prescription. The respondent was paid $40 for facilitating the transaction between Daniella and the intermediary. Buprenorphine is a controlled drug.
On 14 September 2021 the respondent, together with an intermediary, supplied and/or sold Daniella five 8 milligram buprenorphine strips when she did not have a valid prescription. The respondent was paid $40 for facilitating the transaction between Daniella and the intermediary.
On 21 September 2021 the respondent trafficked a controlled drug by selling to Daniella three 8 milligram buprenorphine strips for $20 when she did not have a valid prescription. This incident is the subject of the first trafficking conviction.
On 12 October 2021 the respondent trafficked a controlled drug by selling to Daniella five 8 milligram buprenorphine strips for $35 when she did not have a valid prescription. This incident is the subject of the second trafficking conviction.
On 28 November 2021 South Australia Police attended the respondent's home address and executed a general search warrant. A car registered to the pharmacy that was parked outside the property was also searched and was found to contain 177 clonazolam tablets in a resealable bag. Clonazolam is a controlled drug. This incident is the subject of the possession with intent to supply conviction.
On 15 September 2023 the respondent was sentenced to a total period of imprisonment for two years seven months and 14 days, with a non-parole period of 16 months, to be served on home detention.
On 5 August 2024 the respondent surrendered his registration with the applicant.
We find that this conduct was inconsistent with the relevant code of conduct and constitutes professional misconduct. In particular, we find that the conduct is inconsistent with the respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession of pharmacy.
[2]
We adopt the court record and the remarks of the sentencing judge.
The respondent was almost 41 years old when he was convicted and was an experienced pharmacist. He had significant experience operating a pharmacy servicing patients undergoing Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Dependence (MATOD) having done so since 2009.
Any reasonable pharmacist working in this setting would have become highly attuned and attentive to the risks associated with the diversion and abuse of buprenorphine.
The respondent trafficked buprenorphine strips indicated only for the treatment of opiate dependence (including maintenance and detoxification) within a framework of medical, social and psychological treatment. He trafficked to a woman whom he can only have understood to not have a proper therapeutic need, thereby placing her recovery at risk for his own financial gain.
As such, his behaviour was comprehensively inconsistent with the characteristics necessary to uphold the pharmacist's role as the last line of defence against the abuse of medications. Pharmacists have a supply of drugs that may be misused.
The offence of possession related to possession of clonazolam that he had procured for self-administration as a treatment for anxiety and issues with sleep. The respondent's evidence is that he sought benzodiazepines on three occasions from separate medical practitioners, but after each declined to prescribe benzodiazepines, he illegally sourced clonazolam.
That his general practitioners declined to prescribe benzodiazepines to him is perhaps unsurprising, given that he took diazepam for two years following the dissolution of his first marriage. He came off diazepam with the assistance of his general practitioner. Nonetheless, the respondent used illegally sourced clonazolam for a period of approximately two years.
The Tribunal is concerned that on a number of occasions during the investigation of this matter the respondent has sought to minimise the wrongfulness of his behaviour by suggesting that he was intending to prevent harm to drug recipients by providing controlled substances to them.
This is fundamentally inconsistent with the objectives of the MATOD program for users to recover from opiate addiction.
The respondent supplied character references. These speak favourably of him as a competent and diligent pharmacist. Whilst we accept that, apart from the matters in this proceeding, the respondent is a genuine person of good intentions, the matters in this proceeding are serious and substantial, and comprise a deliberate course of conduct rather than a momentary lapse.
The respondent attended the hearing and provided a written submission. He freely admitted all matters and stated that he did not intend to return to pharmacy work but intended to re-build his life in other directions.
His submissions explained that he had gone through an extended period of personal and professional hardship and lost his sense of stability and faith. The decline affected his mental health. Instead of seeking help, he tried to manage alone. He was dealing with multiple family issues and was trying to adapt to a difficult period of change at the pharmacy.
The written submission acknowledges the wrongfulness and seriousness of his conduct. He details the many steps he has taken post-arrest, which include volunteer work. The events leading to this proceeding have greatly disadvantaged his family relationships. His life has now taken a new direction including work outside the health area.
Whilst it is clear that the respondent has been greatly disadvantaged in his personal and professional life, it is necessary for us to consider the maintenance of standards in the profession generally, and to demonstrate to the public that misconduct of this type will not be tolerated.
Even though the respondent indicated that he does not intend to return to pharmacy work, we find that the appropriate order should include that the respondent be disqualified from registration for a period of five years. Since he is not currently registered, we do not order that his registration be cancelled. We will also make the usual order that the respondent pay the costs of the applicant.
We have considered all of the evidence and decided to order the following sanctions.
[3]
The Tribunal decides pursuant to s 196(1)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (the National Law), that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of s 5 of the National Law.
The respondent is reprimanded pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law.
The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of five years pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law.
The respondent is prohibited from providing, whether as an employee, contractor, manager or volunteer, and whether directly or indirectly, any health service until he is granted a registration as a health practitioner under the National Law pursuant to s 196(4)(b) of the National Law.
Pursuant to s 195 of the National Law, the respondent must pay the costs of the Board to be taxed in default of agreement.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Pharmacy Board of Australia
Respondent/Defendant:
Davis [2025] SACAT 105
Legislation Cited (2)
Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010
Substances Act 1984
Cases Cited (1)
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Davis [2025] SACAT 105 (26 November 2025)