1. Under s 196(1) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Vic) (the National Law), VCAT finds, with respect to Allegation 1 in this proceeding (the sole allegation), the respondent behaved in a way which constitutes professional misconduct as defined in paragraph (c) of s 5 of the National Law.

1. Under s 196(2) of the National Law, VCAT determines that the respondent's registration as a pharmacist under the National Law is cancelled.
2. Under s 196(4) of the National Law, VCAT determines to disqualify the respondent from applying for registration as a pharmacist for three years from the date of these orders.

1. In March 2016, VCAT received a referral of allegation from the Pharmacy Board of Australia (the Board) concerning Dr Gyu Sung Lee, a registered pharmacist and registered medical practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law)[1] concerning his conduct in 2013 and 2014.
2. This proceeding only concerns his registration as a pharmacist.
3. The Board alleged Dr Lee engaged in professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct as defined under the National Law in that in 2013 and 2014, he engaged in an unlawful and dishonest course of conduct by:

1. Misappropriating prescription pads from the Royal Children's Hospital; 2. Producing false prescriptions and presenting the false prescriptions to various other pharmacists; and/or

1. Dishonestly obtaining, or attempting to obtain, prescription medications for his own use.
2. On 19 December 2016, VCAT, constituted by a presiding member and two health practitioner (pharmacist) members, heard the referral. The Board and Mr Lee were legally represented. Shortly before the hearing the parties had provided VCAT with an agreed statement of facts and proposed findings.
3. During the hearing we announced that under s 196 of the National Law we found Allegation 1 proven in that Dr Lee had engaged in professional misconduct under paragraph (c) of that term as defined in s 5 of the National Law:

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. As the parties agreed was appropriate, we then heard submissions concerning determinations.
2. The Board submitted we should cancel Dr Lee's registration as a pharmacist and prevent him from reapplying for such registration for two or three years. Dr Lee submitted we should suspend his registration for eight months, given he had voluntarily stopped working as a pharmacist four months earlier.
3. We reserved our decision on determinations.

1. We base the following on the parties' agreed statement of facts, the documentary evidence before us and Dr Lee's oral evidence before us at the hearing.
2. Dr Lee is 28 years old. He was born in Korea to Korean parents. Early in his life the family moved to Singapore and in 2003 immigrated to Australia. Dr Lee is a highly intelligent man who performed very well at school and at university. He has faced difficulties in life. His family life was in the context of his father being abusive, particularly to his mother. According to Dr Lee, during his high school years in Australia, he was ostracised by fellow students on the basis of his ethnicity.
3. In 2009, Dr Lee completed a Bachelor of Pharmacy at the University of Queensland. On 23 August 2010, he was first registered as a pharmacist.
4. In 2011, Dr Lee commenced a Doctor of Medicine course at Melbourne University.
5. According to Dr Lee, before then his father 'lost his financial bearings'. Dr Lee needed to earn income helped to support his father, mother and brother. From 2011 to 2013, he worked part-time as a pharmacist while studying for his medical degree. In 2012, he worked up to 25 hours a week in pharmacy while studying full-time.
6. In the years leading up to 2013, there had been ongoing problems between Dr Lee's parents. In early 2013, the family disharmony increased significantly. His father assaulted his mother, his younger brother and Dr Lee. An intervention order was granted in favour of Dr Lee against his father. Dr Lee experienced significant emotional distress in the aftermath of the assault.
7. Dr Lee spoke of the difficulty of confronting a father within the Korean culture and the impact of doing so on himself. He experienced the onset of depressive symptoms throughout 2013, which escalated in severity.
8. After the domestic violence, his father separated from his family, placing significant financial pressure on the family. To provide them with income, Dr Lee worked approximately 36 hours per week as a pharmacist in addition to full time study in the third year of his medical degree involving five clinical rotations with no breaks during the year.
9. Dr Lee's proven offending conduct occurred on various dates in 2013 and on 22 October 2014; the date Victoria police executed a search warrant at his home address.

1. In January 2013, Dr Lee misappropriated a prescription pad from the Royal Children's Hospital whilst undertaking a work placement as part of his medical degree studies.
2. Between 25 January 2013 and 14 March 2013, on five occasions at the Health Smart Pharmacy, Carlton, Dr Lee produced false prescription documents and dishonestly obtained prescription medications (Naprosyn (naproxen), tramadol, Alepam (oxazepam), dexamphetamine, prednisolone, methotrexate, folic acid, Panadol Osteo (paracetamol) and pantoprazole.
3. On or about 20 April 2013, at Terry White Chemists, Balwyn, Dr Lee produced a false prescription document and dishonestly obtained prescription medications (Alepam (oxazepam), dexamphetamine, Xanax (alprazolam) , Catapres (clonidine), escitalopram and Tramal (tramadol)).
4. On or about 21 November 2013, at Sunrise Medical Centre Pharmacy, Greensborough, Dr Lee produced a false prescription document and dishonestly obtained prescription medications (folic acid and pantoprazole).
5. On or about 21 November 2013, at Sunrise Medical Centre Pharmacy, Greensborough, Dr Lee produced a false prescription document and attempted to dishonestly obtain prescription medications (Concerta (methylphenidate), Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Ativan (lorazepam).
6. On 23 November 2013, Mr Erikos Dimatos, Pharmacist, Sunrise Medical Centre Pharmacy notified Victoria Police that on 21 November 2013, Dr Lee produced false prescriptions (using the name of the doctor who was entirely unaware of his actions and a fictitious patient name) and dishonestly obtained prescription medications. That day, Mr Dimatos made a statement to Victoria Police. There is no evidence of Victoria Police acting on his statement at that time.

1. On 22 October 2014, Victoria Police arrested and interviewed Dr Lee. For a very short time Dr Lee denied the alleged offending conduct, but then admitted the conduct, before, on the same day, Victoria Police searched his residence. Dr Lee had in his possession, without authorisation, Ritalin tablets (methylphenidate), Duragesic patches (fentanyl) and Norspan patches (buprenorphine). While not the subject of the allegations in this proceeding, Victoria Police also discovered cocaine, cannabis and psilocybin. With our focus being on the allegations before us and Dr Lee's current circumstances, we do not again address the discovery of the cocaine, cannabis and psilocybin.
2. Dr Lee was charged with criminal offences.
3. In October and November 2014, Dr Lee notified AHPRA that he had been charged with criminal offences punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more, as required by s 30 of the National Law.
4. From October 2014, Dr Lee voluntarily sought counselling from Mr Michael Di Mattia and then Mr Alistair Pitts. He voluntarily submitted for urine screens. All screens came back negative.
5. On 9 December 2014, Dr Lee pleaded guilty at the Magistrates' Court charges of theft, dishonestly obtaining property by deception (prescription medications) and possession of drugs of dependence. The magistrate refused Victoria Police's recommendation that the matter proceed by means of diversion and the matter proceeded as a plea of guilty. If the magistrate had agreed, the matter would have been adjourned to allow Dr Lee to comply with certain conditions. If he had complied with the conditions, the matter would have been struck out with no conviction or finding of guilt recorded.
6. During the Magistrates' Court proceeding, Dr Lee expressed remorse and shame for his offending. He was sentenced, without conviction, to be released on an undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of six months with a special condition that he seek and undergo psychological counselling and treatment.
7. On 1 December 2014, the Melbourne University Medical School terminated Dr Lee's enrolment in his Doctor of Medicine.

1. On 13 January 2015, the Board decided to conduct an investigation into Dr Lee's professional conduct under s 160 of the National Law.
2. On 29 January 2015, Melbourne University's Academic Board Appeal Committee upheld Dr Lee's appeal against the decision to terminate his enrolment.
3. He graduated from his medical degree and took up an internship at Goulburn Valley Health, from mid-2015 to mid-2016.
4. On 22 January 2015, the Medical Board of Australia (the MBA) commenced an investigation into Dr Lee's conduct. Dr Lee admitted to the facts forming the basis of the MBA's allegations for investigation.
5. On the same day, AHPRA wrote to Dr Lee notifying him of the Board's investigation and requesting his response in relation to the same.
6. On 13 February 2015, Dr Lee's lawyers replied to AHPRA including a psychological assessment report by Dr Mathew Barth, dated 5 December 2014. Dr Barth said in part:

Mr Lee's immaturity, limited emotional awareness, simplistic coping skills for his emotions and his exceptionally high standards which have resulted in a sensitivity to any potential for disappointment or failure. These features of his adjustment culminated during a period of significant depression, underpinning his offending behaviour.

Several positive prognostic factors in Mr Lee's case, including the aversive impact of the current proceedings, the remorse he has expressed for his behaviour, his superior intelligence, the strong support he now has from his family and girlfriend and the positive response he has shown to these incidents by initiating effective psychological treatment.

Provided that Mr Lee continues to engage in psychological treatment to address his immaturity, emotional awareness and coping skills ... his risk of further involvement in the criminal justice system would be relatively low.

1. On 19 March 2015, the MBA granted Dr Lee provisional registration as a medical practitioner subject to conditions that he not practice until permitted to do so should an independent health assessment be favourable.
2. Following an independent health assessment of Dr Lee by Dr Nicholas Ingram on 16 April 2015, in July 2015 the MBA lifted the conditions on the basis of undertakings from Dr Lee that, in summary, he would provide AHPRA with details of hospitals at which he practices, to attend his treating general practitioner for regular sessions and to provide reports from his treating general practitioner to AHPRA every three months.
3. In September 2015, the MBA decided to take no further action under the National Law against Dr Lee because he had made a self-notification, the MBA had given him provisional registration knowing of his offending and the risk of misusing medications and being in possession of drugs of dependence was being managed by current restrictions on his provisional registration as a medical practitioner.
4. Moving back a little in time, on 10 July 2015, Dr Lee provided his formal response to the Board, including him very largely admitting the Board's allegations, maintaining he was a fit and proper person to hold registration as a pharmacist and that he no longer had health impairment that may affect his capacity to practice as a pharmacist. The Board made the referral to VCAT.

1. Throughout 2016, AHPRA continued to receive positive supportive reports regarding Mr Lee's progress with Goulburn Valley Health, principally from Dr Mead (his GP) and Dr Kamenjarin (his supervising doctor).
2. In a letter dated 18 July 2016, Dr Kamenjarin wrote to AHPRA at the end of Dr Lee's Goulburn Valley Health internship. She spoke highly of his professional skills and had no concerns about his behaviour or performance. She expected he would remain at Goulburn Valley Health for the next 18 months.
3. In a letter dated 5 August 2016, Dr Mead said:

I reviewed [Dr Lee] again today. He presented as usual with no health concerns and expressed enthusiasm about his professional progress. He has been fully compliant with regard to his review appointments. There were no indications of being currently unfit to practice.

1. Here, we insert a comment.
2. On the basis of the above and other medical opinion provided in this proceeding, we would have potentially been dealing with a young man, who found himself in extremely difficult circumstances, committed serious offences but on all evidence available was well on his way to reformation. However, more was to come.
3. On 2 December 2016, VCAT received from Dr Lee's lawyers, information concerning Dr Lee's further offending. We adopt a brief summary based on court documents.
4. In late 2015, Dr Lee stole a prescription pad from the Goulburn Valley Base Hospital. He then used this script pad to write prescriptions for himself using the details of Doctor Opelo Sefphore, who had worked at the hospital for a short period.
5. Between 31 December 2015 and 23 July 2016, Dr Lee attended the Priceline Pharmacy in Wyndham Street, Shepparton, the Chemist Warehouse in Wyndham Street Shepparton, the Chemist Warehouse in Riverside Plaza Shepparton, the Balanced Health Pharmacy in Shepparton and the Priceline Pharmacy in Bourke Street Mall Melbourne on a number of occasions with scripts from Goulburn Valley Health and dishonestly obtained prescription medications (Lyrica (pregabalin), tramadol (including Tramedo SR), Endone and Oxycontin (oxycodone), zolpidem tartrate, Solone (prednisolone) and temazepam.
6. On 5 August 2016, Dr Lee again presented at the Priceline Pharmacy in Bourke Street Mall Melbourne with a script from Goulburn Valley Health. On this occasion the pharmacist made inquiries of Dr Sefphore, who informed the pharmacist that she had not written the script for Dr Lee. The pharmacist then advised Dr Lee that the script was forged and would not be filled.
7. While not included in the summary, we note Mr Lee tried to persuade Dr Sefphore not to (by phone call and text) not to report him.
8. Dr Sefphore reported the matter to Victoria Police. When interviewed on 30 September 2016, Dr Lee made full admissions and, in the view of the police informant in the case, appeared remorseful for his offending.
9. On 21 November 2016, Dr Lee pleaded guilty at the Shepparton Magistrates' Court to four criminal charges: three charges of dishonestly obtaining property by deception (prescription medication) and one charge of possession of drugs of dependence.
10. The Court documents included a preliminary brief - statement made by the informant which in part quoted Dr Lee's police interview on 30 September 2016:

I am really sorry for putting everybody in this position. When I relapsed, even at the time I didn't think I had a problem. When I relapsed I didn't even have the insight, I don't know, I messed up big time, I'm really sorry.

In 2014 I got done for the same thing, possess illicit drugs. I did get help but didn't have the insight and was in denial about being addicted to or [having] a drug problem. I thought I just used recreational and also to stay functional when I had my bouts of depression and to stay functional at school with all the stresses I had.

I stayed clean for a while. I went back to work and had the same problems and I guess I relapsed and still then I didn't have the insight that I was addicted. I always told myself I would stop. I would have a break or something like that. When I started I had quite a bit of stresses. I had the VCAT for my pharmacy tribunal from the last charges and sort of dragged on and the stresses from that and I have a history of family issues and domestic violence, that is why I started on drugs in 2013.

To stay functional and not depressed and mental issue problem I self-medicated. I found out last year my mum was living in government housing, which she didn't have to and that was cause of my dad and problems with that. So I really just got very depressed and couldn't sleep and got depressed cause I wanted to do well at my internship. So to stay functional I was in a slump, I went downhill really quickly. I took a prescription pad from the hospital, I forged a prescription and just self-medicated, trying to forget and sleep and function at work.

1. Dr Lee was sentenced, without conviction, to be released on an adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of two years with a special condition that he pay $1,000 to the Court Fund.
2. Dr Lee has not worked as a pharmacist since March 2014. In response to further notifications concerning Dr Lee's conduct in 2015 and 2016 concerning the above conduct, Dr Lee's registration as a pharmacist and as a medical practitioner became subject to his undertakings (since 12 August 2016) not to practise either as a medical practitioner or as a pharmacist.

1. Section 5 of the National Law defines 'professional misconduct', of a registered health practitioner, as including:

1. 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; 2. 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

1. 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.
2. As the parties proposed, we had no difficulty in finding, on the basis of the allegations before us concerning his conduct in 2013 and 2014 - the allegations before us in this proceeding - Dr Lee's conduct is inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.
3. Stealing a prescription pad from the Royal Children's Hospital, forging prescriptions, using the name of a doctor and fictitious patient names to record on the prescriptions and then consuming medications obtained breaches obvious fundamental trusts which the community places in pharmacists. Dr Lee's conduct betrays the fundamental basis of pharmacists' professional obligations over a substantial period of time. Of course, he also engaged in criminal conduct. He only stopped when caught.
4. We adopt the words of Pharmacy Board of Victoria v Jadczuk (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2009] VCAT 1023 at [62]:

By being found guilty of these numerous offences, he has brought the profession into disrepute. As a pharmacist, he is entrusted with not only the proper destruction of drugs but also the role of maintaining the safe custody and distribution of drugs and poisons to the public. The public expects to have confidence in the integrity of every pharmacist and that every pharmacist be trustworthy to control and deal with drugs properly. In addition he has supplied drugs to himself without a prescription, obtained drugs of dependence by false representation and possessed drugs without authorisation. He has abused the trust of the public. He has clearly demonstrated unprofessional conduct.

1. Once VCAT has made findings, the next step was to make the determinations necessary to protect the public and uphold the profession's reputation. Determinations may range from reprimand to cancellation of registration.
2. VCAT's role is not to punish the practitioner, although its decisions may involve a degree of punishment for the purpose of specific deterrence (to deter the individual in question from repeating the misconduct) or general deterrence (to warn others in the profession against such misconduct). VCAT's role is to protect the public and the profession's reputation.[2]
3. On the issue of whether to suspend or cancel Dr Lee's registration, cancellation involves judgement that at the time the practitioner is not suitable for registration and if he or she seeks to return to the profession, that must involve applying for registration afresh. Suspension involves a judgement that at the time of the period of suspension the person will be fit for reregistration.[3]
4. On this issue, all of the evidence before us concerning Dr Lee's conduct is relevant as we make a decision based on all current evidence.

1. At the hearing before us, Dr Lee gave evidence concerning the events from 2011 that led up to his offending over 2011 to 2016.
2. He spoke of commencing recreational drug and prescription drug use in 2011 and 2012 while a medical student. During cross-examination he candidly admitted frequently using a range of recreational drugs, starting in 2011. He spoke of trying to deal with being alone in Melbourne, with his family still living in Brisbane and his mother calling in distress concerning domestic violence by his father. The 2011 and 2012 drug use was something that only first revealed when Dr Lee saw Mr Patrick Newton, Psychologist in August 2016. He had not disclosed this in the course of dealing with his 2013/2014 offending.
3. He attributed his 2013/2014 offending, until about March 2014, to the pressure of study and working as a pharmacist. He said he was able to stop when the family situation improved with him reunited with his father. According to Dr Lee in the course of his 2013/14 offending he did not regard himself as having an addiction problem. Medical professionals he consulted did not diagnose addiction. In his opinion he was self-medicating to deal with anxiety, depression and a heavy workload. He says that when he was caught he stopped the offending.
4. Concerning the drugs which were found in his possession in 2014, he said he had them, not because he had been using such drugs, but because he intended at some time in the future to use the drugs.
5. Dr Lee gave further evidence concerning domestic violence in his family, which we accept and about which it is not necessary to expand concerning the events of violence.
6. It is necessary to record that it was while he was an intern with Goulburn Valley Health that he learned that his mother had moved from the home Dr Lee owns in Carlton to public housing due to further domestic violence in the home where his father and brother also lived. According to Dr Lee, the guilt and stress of not being in Melbourne to support the family led him to his 2015/2016 offending, starting about September/October 2015. He agreed that his offending went beyond the matters proven in late 2016 and that if had not been caught he would have continued offending. He claimed he has not used drugs since he was caught in August 2016. Negative drug screen test results support his claim. According to Dr Lee, this does not cause him difficulty. He is not working and so he said that his stress is much reduced. He spoke of his medical advisors saying he was not in need of medication for anxiety and/or depression.
7. During cross-examination, Dr Lee spoke of working as an intern while under the influence of drugs and agreed this was dangerous and unacceptable. However, Dr Lee was somewhat inconsistent in his evidence. He also spoke of drug use making him 'functional'.
8. Also during cross-examination, Dr Lee gave evidence of his reasons for using an array of prescription medications obtained under false pretences to address sleeplessness, anxiety and depression. While perhaps not highly relevant, in the view of the pharmacist members of this VCAT panel, to some extent he did not appear to understand the effects of some of those medications. We will not detail this.
9. According to Dr Lee, while he was addicted in earlier years, it was not until he was caught for the second time in August 2016 that he realised that fact. He says he is now a changed person with insight that he suffers from addiction.
10. He is confident that he will not again abuse drugs in the context of his insight into his problem, past and ongoing treatment by an addiction specialist, a psychologist and his general practitioner, of his ongoing attendance with the Victorian Doctors Health Program and the Caduceus Group within the program which is a peer-based support group for medical professionals who suffer from substance abuse issues.
11. Dr Lee is confident that once he has resolved the family violence issues within his family, he will soon after be fit to resume practice as a pharmacist because, together in the context of his other supports, this will reduce his risk of relapse. He lives with his father and adult brother in Carlton. His mother remains in public housing but visits. With his father having returned to employment, he expects his father will leave the Carlton home in early 2017 to reside near his employment in a Melbourne suburb and Dr Lee's mother will move back to the Carlton home.
12. In his view, by about August 2017, it will be feasible for him to return to practice as a pharmacist under strict conditions concerning testing for drug use, ongoing treatment for addiction, professional supervision and appropriate reporting to AHPRA.
13. One of the reasons Dr Lee thinks what would effectively be a 12 month suspension, being the four months since he gave an undertaking not to practice and a further eight months, is that, in his view, some practitioners have far more serious problems than he does and have been permitted to relatively quickly resume practice.
14. Dr Lee's confidence in his ability to deal with the future is not shared by others.
15. Mr Newton's 5 September 2016 report, prepared for this proceeding, is informative. Mr Newton regards Dr Lee as a man of superior intelligence who, assuming he could overcome his difficulties, should have a high level of potential to continue to contribute to his field and to benefit from such further therapeutic endeavours as he might choose to undertake.
16. However, Mr Newton diagnoses Dr Lee as meeting criteria for the diagnosis of Persistent Depressive Disorder, Obsessive - Compulsive Personality Disorder and Severe Substance Use Disorder, the latter 'in Early Remission'. He regarded Dr Lee's ability to use alternative means to manage his psychological, family and stress-related problems as limited and poorly established, noting his quick relapse once earlier treatment finished.
17. In Mr Newton's opinion these factors suggested that the risk of relapse of problematic substance abuse by Dr Lee 'will remain high for at least the next 12 months to 2 years' and relapse would pose 'the most significant risk to the safety of the public identified in Dr Lee's case'. We quote his suggestions:

Dr Lee ought not be permitted to practice until he has satisfactorily completed an extended period of treatment (12 to 18 months) demonstrated the ability to maintain abstinence for a minimum of two years.

Once permitted to practice, he should practice only under the supervision of a senior colleague who is fully aware of his history for a period of time to be determined by the relevant regulatory authority.

During this period, Dr Lee should remain subject to random urine drug screening and have his dispensing and/or prescribing practice supervised by a senior colleague.

Report should be provided to the relevant authority by the treating clinicians and supervisors.

Progress to less restrictive conditions of practice should take place only on the basis of demonstrated and sustained progress towards treatment goals.

1. Dr Lee also saw Mr Alistair Pitts, psychologist, with respect to his then pending charges concerning his 2015/2016 offending. His report is dated 16 November 2016. Mr Pitts had also seen Dr Lee for counselling between February and June 2015 and a further five sessions from 31 August 2016. Mr Pitts differed from Mr Newton in that he did not regard Dr Lee as meeting diagnostic criteria for psychological disorder, noting that in December 2104, Dr Barth had reported that Dr Lee would not meet criteria for any mood disorder, anxiety related disorder or adjustment disorder.
2. Mr Pitts viewed Dr Lee as having made:

some gains in terms of its insight, his emotional awareness and adopting improved stress management practices, however his progress in utilising more adaptive coping skills has not been tested in recent months by the kind of acute family or work-related stress which precipitated his previous substance abuse and offending.

1. He regarded Dr Lee as having a moderate risk of relapse to substance abuse/reoffending given past events even though he was reporting low levels of psychological distress. In his view, further episodes of family violence could act as a trigger for distress potential relapse.
2. We also had before us:

1. A reference from the Director of Intern Training, Clinical Supervisor Emergency Department, Goulburn Valley Health, dated 18 October 2016, describing Dr Lee as diligent, dedicated and skilled and expressing disappointment at learning of his ongoing drug problems. The Director was impressed with Dr Lee's maturity in accepting and taking responsibility for what he had done; 2. A letter from the Victorian Doctors Health Program, dated 20 October 2016, describing Dr Lee is well engaged with the VDHP and reporting much improved emotional and physical health and saying the Program will continue to support him;

1. A letter dated 3 November 2016 from Dr Tony Mead, a general practitioner whom Dr Lee punctually saw since mid-2015 as part of AHPRA monitoring Dr Lee's health. Given Dr Lee's positive presentations reporting a healthy lifestyle and expressing satisfaction and enthusiasm concerning his current and future professional work, Dr Mead was unaware of Dr Lee's 2015/2016 offending until in August 2016 AHPRA informed him of this. Dr Lee had confirmed his offending to Dr Mead and continued to see him.

1. A short letter from Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Specialist in Addiction Medicine, dated 15 November 2016 describing Dr Lee pursuing treatment strategies and providing twice-weekly urine drug reports that are all clear; and 2. A letter from the Medical Board of Australia approving Dr Lee's request to write and publish medical research concerning healthcare in regional Victoria.
2. Dr Lee is undertaking the above-mentioned research.

1. Dr Lee's conduct demands suspension or cancellation of his registration as a pharmacist in the cause of specific deterrence, general deterrence and the protection of the reputation of the profession.
2. We have cancelled Dr Lee's registration as a pharmacist. We see no basis for us to be confident that, at a date set by us at this time, he will be fit for reregistration.
3. First, we are unimpressed by Dr Lee's evidence as to his insight and the ease with which he apparently thinks he will overcome addiction, in the face of the contradictory professional opinions. Second, we accepted Mr Newton's recommendations set out above. Third, while there is no need to resolve the differing opinions between Mr Newton and Mr Pitt concerning diagnosis, we did not read Mr Pitts' opinion as being anything more than cautiously optimistic. We very much doubt Mr Pitts would, if he had the opportunity to do so, confirm Dr Lee's view as to his progress to date and his ability to deal with his addiction. Fourth, it is difficult to see why we would have such confidence given the great confidence expressed about Dr Lee after his 2013/2015 offending, followed by his repeat offending in 2015/2016. Fifth, this is all in the context of Dr Lee's conduct being a betrayal of his professional obligations.
4. This is in the context that, while not doubting the integrity and/or professional skills of those treating Dr Lee, it is striking that after the 2013/2014 offending, professionals were writing glowing reports about Dr Lee's recovery with those reports dated in the period when Dr Lee was presenting forged prescriptions to pharmacies. It is evident Dr Lee is adept at presenting well. During cross-examination, Dr Lee agreed this was so.
5. We rejected the submission put on behalf of Dr Lee that with random urine testing and the imposition of conditions by us on his return to practice, suspension was an appropriate determination. Our lack of confidence as to when he may be fit for reregistration makes that option untenable.
6. We also rejected the submission put on behalf of Dr Lee that the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal's decision in Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374 provides a basis for VCAT to, in this case, suspend Dr Lee and impose conditions which would apply on his resumption of practice.
7. Stirling concerned a barrister's professional misconduct in failing to comply with taxation obligations. The Court of Appeal overturned VCAT's three year suspension from practice and suspended Mr Stirling for 30 months with 24 months suspended and imposed conditions. The Court accepted Mr Stirling had demonstrated his remorse, was working hard at rehabilitation and had reasonable prospects of achieving return to being a fit and proper person. The Court imposed what it viewed as a disposition that encouraged that outcome consistent with a protective function of the jurisdiction, imposing conditions to assist his rehabilitation.[4]
8. Concerning the 'Stirling submission' we need say no more than we are not satisfied that the remorse Dr Lee has expressed is grounded in realistic insight into his situation nor that at this stage we can confidently say he has reasonable prospects of achieving return to being a fit and proper person to practice as a pharmacist.
9. That said, we hope Dr Lee does achieve rehabilitation and at some point becomes fit for reregistration. Assuming this occurs and he reapplies, the Board will be the appropriate decision maker. If it reregisters him, it is the appropriate body to impose conditions at that time, based on evidence then available.
10. Turning to the earliest date at which Dr Lee may apply for reregistration, we decided three years from the date of these orders is appropriate; remembering the purpose of determinations is to protect the public, not to punish Dr Lee.
11. In terms of the deterring Dr Lee from future such conduct, in the context of Mr Newton in September 2016 describing him of being at high risk 'for at least the next 12 months to 2 years', and allowing a buffer once that risk subsides, in our view three years is appropriate. It is also appropriate to give Dr Lee an unambiguous message concerning the severe ramifications of his conduct on himself.
12. In terms of deterring members of the pharmacy profession from such conduct, again a relatively long period of prohibition from application for reregistration is appropriate to deliver the clearest message possible as to the consequences of failing ones professional obligations in this manner.
13. Similarly, in terms of protecting the reputation of the profession, a long period of disqualification from reapplication is appropriate.

[1] As set out in the schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) adopted in Victoria under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009.

[2] See Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374

[3] See Honey v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2007] VCAT 526 at [42].