1. The Tribunal finds that the conduct the subject of allegations 1-5 constitute professional misconduct pursuant to the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009.

1. Mr Maxwell is reprimanded
2. Mr Maxwell's registration is suspended for a period of 12 months from today's date.
3. Conditions are imposed on the registration of Mr Maxwell in accordance with the attached Appendix A to these orders.
4. Pursuant to section 196 (3) of the National Law, the review period for the conditions referred to in order (4) above is 12 months.

1. In 2011, Mr Adam Maxwell, who held a previously unblemished registration record over many years as a Pharmacist, started self-medicating due to a chronic pain condition. Matters went from bad to worse culminating in Mr Maxwell ultimately facing the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in December 2015 charged with serious criminal offences relating to the self-supply and self-administration of prescription pain killers accessed by him during his work as a pharmacist.
2. On 30 January 2018, the Pharmacy Board of Australia referred Mr Maxwell's conduct to this Tribunal under s.193 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009. The Board is required to refer conduct where it reasonably believes that a practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
3. The Tribunal scheduled a compulsory conference in April 2018 which resulted in due course in the parties preparing a Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Findings and Determinations.
4. Whilst ultimately a matter for us, an agreement that has been reached between the parties is an important matter for our consideration. There is a public interest - both in terms of the avoidance of lengthy litigation and saved costs - in encouraging responsible parties to reach appropriate agreements.
5. The matter proceeded to final hearing before us on 21 November 2018. We were provided with a comprehensive Tribunal book containing all of the relevant material and heard submissions from the parties. Mr Maxwell also gave perceptive evidence before us. His family lent their support to him during the hearing.
6. We were persuaded that we should adopt the following Agreed Statement of Facts together with the proposed findings and determinations.
7. We will now address each in turn.

1. Mr Maxwell was first registered as a pharmacist in Victoria on 4 January 1988.
2. This agreed statement of facts and findings (Statement) has been prepared by the parties and is jointly submitted to the Tribunal.

1. All of the conduct the subject of the allegations against Mr Maxwell occurred after 1 July 2010 and thus the applicable regulatory scheme is contained in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law).

1. The parties make joint submissions in this Statement in respect of the appropriate findings to be made by the Tribunal under s 196(1) of the National Law.

1. Mr Maxwell worked as a pharmacist from 1988 until early 2015.
2. He and his wife Louise, also a pharmacist, ran their own pharmacy business between 2000 and 2007.
3. Mr Maxwell asserts that in 2008 he also obtained a teaching qualification.
4. Mr Maxwell has a long-standing varicose vein medical condition that causes him pain.
5. Mr Maxwell began self-medicating with various non-prescription pain killers in 2010. This progressed to self-medicating with oxycodone at the end of 2012.

1. The Pharmacy Board of Australia Code of Conduct for registered health practitioners (version retired 16 March 2014), and the Code of Conduct version of 17 March 2014, set out the standards expected of a pharmacist in the position of Mr Maxwell.
2. The Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (the Act) and the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) governed the supply and administration of drugs of dependence in Victoria at the relevant time.

1. Mr Maxwell admits Allegation 1 as set out in the Notice of Allegations, and the particulars contained therein, namely that:
   1. Between 11 March 2014 and 4 July 2014, while employed at Wood Pharmacy, Mr Maxwell supplied to himself and misappropriated the following Schedule 8 poisons without authorisation:
      1. Approximately 110 Endone 5 mg tablets;
      2. Approximately 352 Oxycontin 80 mg tablets;
      3. Approximately 350 Oxycontin 40 mg tablets;
      4. Approximately 28 Oxycontin 5 mg tablets; and
      5. Approximately 18 Oxynorm 10 mg capsules.
   2. Between 12 September 2011 and 6 August 2014, while employed at Friends Pharmacy, Mr Maxwell supplied the following Schedule 8 poisons to himself without authorisation:
      1. Approximately 345 Endone 5 mg tablets;
      2. Approximately 12 Oxycontin 40 mg tablets;
      3. Approximately 56 Oxycontin 5 mg tablets; and
      4. Approximately 40 Physeptone 10 mg tablets.
   3. Between 13 January 2013 and 20 September 2014, while employed at U Pharmacy Hartwell, Mr Maxwell supplied the following Schedule 8 poisons to himself without authorisation:
      1. Approximately 224 Endone 5 mg tablets;
      2. Approximately 48 Oxycontin 80 mg tablets; and
      3. Approximately 70 Oxycontin 40 mg tablets.
   4. Between 1 March 2013 and 14 April 2014, while employed at Pearcedale Pharmacy, Mr Maxwell supplied the following Schedule 8 poisons to himself without authorisation:
      1. Approximately 160 Endone 5 mg tablets;
      2. Approximately 115 Oxycontin 80 mg tablets;
      3. Approximately 224 Oxycontin 40 mg tablets; and
      4. Approximately 42 Oxynorm 10 mg capsules.
   5. Mr Maxwell was charged with four rolled up charges of supplying a Schedule 8 poison without authorisation (representing 55 instances of breaches of regulation 15 of the Regulations).
   6. Mr Maxwell pleaded guilty to the above charges at the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 9 December 2015.

1. Mr Maxwell admits Allegation 2 as set out in the Notice of Allegations, and the particulars contained therein, namely that:
   1. Between 13 January 2013 and 6 August 2014, Mr Maxwell knowingly made a false or misleading entry involving Schedule 8 poisons on approximately 60 occasions, including:
      1. 15 occasions at Wood Pharmacy, North Melbourne;
      2. 14 occasions at Friends Pharmacy, Ashburton;
      3. 6 occasions at U Pharmacy, Hartwell; and
      4. 25 occasions at Pearcedale Pharmacy, Pearcedale.
   2. Mr Maxwell was charged with four rolled up charges of knowingly making a false or misleading entry involving a Schedule 8 poison (representing 60 instances of breaches of regulation 42 of the Regulations).
   3. Mr Maxwell pleaded guilty to the above charges at the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 9 December 2015.

1. Mr Maxwell admits Allegation 3 as set out in the Notice of Allegations, and the particulars contained therein, namely that:
   1. Between 6 June 2014 and 12 June 2014, Mr Maxwell failed to keep the required records of a transaction involving a Schedule 8 poison on two occasions at Wood Pharmacy North Melbourne.
   2. On 20 September 2014, Mr Maxwell failed to keep the required records of a transaction involving a Schedule 8 poison at U Pharmacy Hartwell.
   3. Mr Maxwell was charged with two rolled up charges of failing to keep records of transactions involving Schedule 8 poisons (representing three instances of breaches of regulation 40 of the Regulations).
   4. Mr Maxwell pleaded guilty to the above charges at the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 9 December 2015.

• Mr Maxwell admits Allegation 4 as set out in the Notice of Allegations, and the particulars contained therein, namely that:
  1. Between 12 September 2011 and 20 September 2014, on approximately 50 occasions, Mr Maxwell supplied Schedule 8 poisons to himself for the purpose of self-administration without a prescription for those poisons.
  2. Mr Maxwell was charged with four rolled up charges of breaching the requirement in regulation 48 of the Regulations (representing 50 instances of breaches of this regulation).
  3. Mr Maxwell pleaded guilty to the above charges at the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 9 December 2015.

1. Mr Maxwell admits Allegation 5 as set out in the Notice of Allegations, and the particulars contained therein, namely that:
   1. Between 12 September 2011 and 20 September 2014, on approximately 50 occasions, Mr Maxwell possessed a drug of dependence without authorisation, in breach of s 73(1) of the Act.
   2. Mr Maxwell was charged with one rolled up charge of possessing a drug of dependence without authorisation (representing 50 instances of possession).
   3. Mr Maxwell pleaded guilty to the above charge at the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 9 December 2015.

1. Mr Maxwell admits that:
   1. During 2013 and 2014, Mr Maxwell self-administered between 80mg and 200mg of oxycodone a day.
   2. On two occasions in April and July 2016, Mr Maxwell obtained a prescription for tramadol, his dependence on that medication increased, and he subsequently photocopied the prescriptions and presented the prescriptions to pharmacies in order to obtain additional medication without having to return to his doctor.
   3. Mr Maxwell, via letter from his counsel to AHPRA dated 8 November 2016, accepted that at that time he was a person who had or may have an impairment, which could detrimentally affect his capacity to practise as a pharmacist.

1. In late 2014, Drugs & Poisons Regulation (DPR) commenced an investigation into discrepancies within the Schedule 8 register at four pharmacies at which Mr Maxwell was employed.
2. On 14 October 2014, AHPRA received a notification from DPR regarding Mr Maxwell.
3. On 26 November 2014, DPR conducted an interview with Mr Maxwell, during which he admitted to misappropriating and self-administering Schedule 8 drugs for the purpose of treating chronic pain.
4. On 16 December 2014, it was discovered that methadone had been misappropriated. On 19 January 2015, Mr Maxwell admitted that in all likelihood he misappropriated those tablets.

1. On 18 December 2014, the Board's Immediate Action Committee took immediate action by accepting an undertaking from Mr Maxwell that he would, amongst other things, not work as a pharmacist unsupervised, not have access to Schedule 8 medications and submit to drug screening tests.

1. On 30 July 2015, the Board accepted an amended undertaking from Mr Maxwell, which stated that he would not, amongst other things, practise as a pharmacist until approved to do so.

1. On 9 December 2015, Mr Maxwell pleaded guilty to 15 rolled up charges. Mr Maxwell, without being convicted, was placed on a good behaviour bond. The Magistrate accepted that:
   1. Mr Maxwell's self-administration of drugs was not for gratuitous reasons but was for the purposes of controlling personal pain;
   2. Mr Maxwell did not engage in conduct that specifically put members of the public at risk.

1. On 25 October 2016, AHPRA wrote to Mr Maxwell requesting a formal written response.
2. Mr Maxwell provided a formal written response to AHPRA by letter from his counsel dated 8 November 2016, in which he:
   1. Admitted that he pleaded guilty to 15 charges relating to his supply (to himself) and self-administration of prescription pain killers which were accessed by him while working as a pharmacist;
   2. Admitted to photocopying prescriptions for tramadol in 2016 and presenting them to pharmacies in order to obtain additional medication without having to return to his doctor; and
   3. Accepted that at that time, he was a person who had or may have an impairment, which could detrimentally affect his capacity to practise as a pharmacist.

Matters following 2014 investigation by Drugs & Poisons Regulation

1. Mr Maxwell's General Practitioner, Dr Sweet, referred him to an addiction medicine specialist, Dr Lloyd-Jones in November 2014. Mr Maxwell consulted with Dr Lloyd Jones on six occasions throughout late 2014 to late 2015 for treatment in the form of supportive therapy. Mr Maxwell submitted to drug screens organised via Dr Sweet, as required from time to time by AHPRA.
2. Mr Maxwell also underwent psychological counselling with psychologist Ms Ennis throughout 2015. As Ms Ennis ceased practice, from early 2016 onwards Mr Maxwell has continued regular psychological counselling with another psychologist, Dr Thomas.

1. Mr Maxwell asserts that in June 2015, he obtained a contract position as a teacher at a private boys' school. Mr Maxwell asserts that at the time of accepting the position, he had no criminal charges pending against him. Mr Maxwell asserts that in December 2015, he declined to accept a permanent and ongoing position at that school due to the pending charges at that stage.

1. Following his guilty plea in the Magistrate's Court in December 2015, Mr Maxwell advised the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) on 21 December 2015 of his guilty plea and good behaviour bond, without conviction. The VIT responded on 31 March 2016 stating that it had decided not to inquire further into the matters as the offence did not seriously impact upon Mr Maxwell's current fitness to teach.
2. Mr Maxwell asserts that in April 2016, he commenced working at a public secondary school (the School) as a science teacher on what was initially a short-term contract.
3. Mr Maxwell asserts that he was under considerable pressure to perform, given his previous transgression and the loss of his pharmacy career and was struggling with physical pain and stress. During this period, he obtained two prescriptions from his doctor for Tramadol, in April and July 2016. His dependence on that medication increased and he later photocopied the prescriptions to obtain additional medication without having to return to his doctor.
4. Mr Maxwell co-operated with the Drugs and Poisons Authority when they became aware of the photocopied Tramadol scripts and he continued to engage with a psychologist. Following Mr Maxwell's attendance at a formal interview, the Drugs and Poisons Authority took no further action in relation to the matter.
5. Mr Maxwell asserts that he was offered, and accepted, a full time position at the School in August 2016. At that time, he asserts he ceased taking Tramadol. He further asserts that the pressure upon him eased somewhat once he had security of tenure.

1. Mr Maxwell asserts that he has chronic pain. He asserts that he has been able to better manage his pain while performing teaching work than was the case with work as a pharmacist.

1. Mr Maxwell is continuing to consult with Dr Thomas monthly and has recently undergone review with Dr Lloyd-Jones on 5 June 2018. Mr Maxwell also continues to consult Dr Sweet every 3-4 months. Since mid-2016, Mr Maxwell has been prescribed amitriptyline by Dr Sweet for his chronic pain.
2. Mr Maxwell relies upon the reports of:
   1. addiction medicine specialist Dr Lloyd-Jones dated 24 June 2018, which concludes that Mr Maxwell does not now have a substance use disorder or an impairment which is a mental impairment, condition or disorder that detrimentally affects, or is likely to affect, his capacity to practice the profession of pharmacy. He also states that Mr Maxwell provided a copy of the results of a hair drug test dated 15 June 2018 which was positive for codeine at 79pg/mg and that the low level of codeine detected was in keeping with the history stated by Mr Maxwell to Dr Lloyd-Jones. Dr Lloyd-Jones is of the opinion that should Mr Maxwell, in the future, seek to work as a pharmacist, he should be subject to:
      1. Regular urine drug screening and 3 monthly hair drug testing; and
      2. Regular reviews by his treating doctor / psychologist.
   2. psychologist Dr Thomas dated 9 April 2018, which concludes that Mr Maxwell no longer meets criteria for a diagnosable clinical mental health disorder.

1. The Principal of the School where Mr Maxwell works is aware of the AHPRA proceeding and the conduct that led to it. The Principal is supportive of Mr Maxwell and has been satisfied with his performance in his role as a teacher.

1. Mr Maxwell has engaged in treatment and has obtained alternative work as a teacher removing himself from a position involving a risk of misappropriation of drugs of dependence.

1. We accept that the above Statement of Agreed Facts has captured the essence of the facts upon which we must base our findings and determinations.

1. The parties jointly submitted that we should find that the conduct the subject of allegations 1-5 constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 which reads as 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 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. We had no difficulty accepting the parties' submission.
2. Mr Maxwell's conduct fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. His conduct was repeated, spanning multiple dates and breaching the trust of multiple employers. His conduct was inconsistent with the conduct of a pharmacist.
3. We agree with the Closing Remarks of the prosecutor at the Magistrates' Court hearing that:

It is of great concern that [Mr Maxwell] continued to work while self-medicating and being subject to his self-confessed addiction. Given the very high daily dosage (if all Schedule 8 poisons misappropriated were consumed) the statement by [Mr Maxwell] that this did not place customers of the pharmacy at risk ought to be treated with some caution.

[Mr Maxwell] held a position of responsibility in the community. He has neglected that responsibility by supplying Schedule 8 poisons in contravention of the Act. In contravening the Act and the Regulations, [Mr Maxwell] has put his own health and potentially the well-being of patients attending the various pharmacies he has worked at risk despite his assertions that he was not negatively affected by his self-administration while at work.

1. It is well established that the role of the Tribunal in disciplinary matters is not to punish the practitioner but to impose such sanctions as are necessary to protect the public and to maintain the standards and reputation of the profession. Determinations may also serve the purpose of deterring the practitioner and/or others from engaging in like conduct.
2. The Board and Mr Maxwell jointly submitted that the appropriate determinations in this matter should be:
   1. a reprimand;
   2. suspension of Mr Maxwell's registration for a period of 12 months from the date of the hearing; and
   3. conditions be imposed on Mr Maxwell's registration in the terms set out in appendix A to these reasons.
3. There are several extremely concerning aspects of the conduct.
4. The conduct spanned some years.
5. Mr Maxwell abused the trust placed in him to conduct himself in accordance with the requirements of his profession by 4 separate employers.
6. Even having lost his pharmacy career, suffered the humiliation of the Magistrates' Court proceedings, and undertaken extensive psychological counselling, Mr Maxwell does not come before us with a completely clean slate thereafter. He agrees that he fell back into a cycle of drug abuse in 2016, which led to his photocopying prescriptions to obtain Tramadol. Mr Maxwell gave frank evidence before us in which he said that he did so because he knew it would be unlikely that his prescribing practitioner would have prescribed it again so quickly. It is unfortunate that the salutary lessons that may have been learnt through the initial immediate action phase and the criminal law proceedings were short-lived or insufficient to prevent a relapse.
7. We are mindful however that conduct such as this does not occur in a vacuum.
8. We accept that Mr Maxwell had complex work pressures and a chronic, extremely painful varicose vein condition requiring multiple surgeries over many years. It was in this context that he started self-medicating from common analgesics progressing to Oxycodone. His complex issues were unlikely to be resolved overnight.
9. In this respect Mr Maxwell's further conduct involving Tramadol, whilst not formerly before us as an allegation, is relevant. Unsurprisingly Mr Maxwell's problems did not abruptly stop. We accept that he continued to battle his 'demons' after he faced the Magistrates' Court. We also accept that his amateurish photocopying of the Tramadol prescriptions, which were bound to be detected, was the necessary further trigger to force Mr Maxwell to confront the fact that he still had issues that needed addressing.
10. Mr Maxwell gave compelling evidence before us. He looks back on this period of his life with dismay. He acknowledged in very frank evidence, that it took him a long time to gain insight into why he acted as he did during the period of the allegations and thereafter. He gave evidence that he now realises that he will have to "forever be on guard" and is acutely aware of the triggers that may prompt a relapse.
11. Mr Maxwell has now had considerable time to reflect on his conduct and why he engaged in it. We accept that he is now genuinely remorseful. In his evidence before us, Mr Maxwell expressed shame and regret. He is horrified to reflect that during this period he kept medications returned to the pharmacy by patients. He regrets that the temptation to keep those medications was too great for him to resist. He accepts he had been in denial as to his addiction. He admitted his decision-making during this period was extremely poor.
12. Mr Maxwell has not practised as a pharmacist since 30 July 2015 pursuant to undertakings given to the Board in late 2014 and mid-2015. In reality, he has worked as a pharmacist very little since 18 December 2014 when he agreed to work under supervision.
13. We accept that during this time he has made significant attempts to address his drug dependency and other issues.
14. He was referred, by Dr Sweet, to Dr Lloyd-Jones who is a specialist in addiction medicine. Mr Maxwell has regularly undergone drug and alcohol screening. Since 2015, the results of that screening have been (largely with one uncertain result) negative.
15. Mr Maxwell has engaged with treating practitioners over an extended period. We were provided with an updated report from Dr Jodie Thomas, clinical psychologist, dated 20 November 2018, which indicated that he has continued to attend therapy on a monthly basis and that there has been no recurrence of clinical symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress and that he continues to report abstinence from opioids. We accept that Mr Maxwell is in the maintenance phase of recovery and that his stated diagnosis of substance use disorder-in remission continues to be a valid assessment of his current mental state. We further accept that Mr Maxwell has indicated to Dr Thomas that he is committed to obtaining monthly psychological support to ensure that the risk of relapse or relapse of substance use or mental health issues is minimised.
16. He has become happier within himself. He has had a change in profession, having added a Diploma of Education to his curriculum vitae and become a teacher.
17. In his role as a teacher, Mr Maxwell is clearly finding great personal satisfaction, engaging in a career to which he is dedicated and well suited. His chronic pain is controllable in circumstances where he does not have to remain on his feet throughout the working day.
18. Mr Maxwell's family were present throughout the hearing. They heard Mr Maxwell's frank evidence of his own need to be on alert. We heard evidence of their ongoing support during this period. Mr Maxwell's wife has gained an understanding of the issues that surrounded his conduct and she regularly discusses any issues he is facing as they arise. We accept that Mr Maxwell would turn to his family in addition to professional help if he were to have fresh issues arise. We accept that his family would be on high alert to any signs that Mr Maxwell was slipping back into old habits.
19. It was sensibly not suggested by either party that Mr Maxwell should be entitled to immediately return to practice. We do not consider that he is ready to do so yet.
20. As things currently stand, it is unlikely that he will want to in the foreseeable future in any event.
21. Our determinations should not be crushing. We accept that Mr Maxwell has now developed a strong degree of insight which was previously lacking/still at its developmental stage.
22. Our determinations should also not be seen in any way to minimise the serious nature of the conduct engaged in by Mr Maxwell. There is a balance which must be struck.
23. The conduct was serious, taking place at multiple pharmacies. It warrants censure.
24. We agree that a reprimand is appropriate.
25. In Peeke v Medical Board of Victoria (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria no 10170 of 1993, 19 January 1993), His Honour Justice Marks observed that a reprimand being a serious form of censure and condemnation "does not trivialise a serious lapse of professional standards and has the potential for serious adverse implications".
26. We also agree with the parties that a period of actual suspension is necessary and warranted in order to protect the public and uphold the standards and reputation of the profession. In another 12 months, five years will have elapsed since the most recent of the episodes of offending set out in allegations 1 to 5 and over three years will have elapsed since the Tramadol incidents referred to in paragraph 17 of the Agreed Statement. Taking into account the lengthy period that Mr Maxwell has not been working as a Pharmacist, we agree that the further period of 12 months proposed by the parties is an appropriate one.
27. We also agree that the proposed conditions are appropriate should Mr Maxwell return to practice.
28. Mr Maxwell is now aware that his work as a pharmacist contributed to his chronic condition. He simply cannot stand for long periods without suffering extreme pain. He accepts that if he were to return to practice, he would need to have significant supports in place and a proper plan as to how his condition would be managed.
29. Clearly if Mr Maxwell does not return to practice, he will not need to undertake the urine and hair drug screening, further education or be obliged to attend his treating practitioner.
30. If he were to return to practice, however, it would be necessary to protect the public to ensure that he is not using any substances that have not been prescribed. The proposed drug screening regime is an appropriate one to ensure this is the case.
31. It would also be necessary to ensure that Mr Maxwell continued to undertake necessary treatment as directed by his treating practitioners and that any place of employment was made aware of the requirements on his registration. The conditions ensuring that this occurs are appropriate.
32. Finally, we agree that the proposed further education is entirely appropriate given the circumstances of this case. The period of 65 hours education, whilst onerous, is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Mr Maxwell should undertake the full complement of the ethics subjects suggested before he returns to practice to ensure that he is reminded in the strongest possible terms of his obligations. Completion of the extensive education proposed would give us further assurance of Mr Maxwell's commitment to adhering to ethical practice.
33. We are satisfied that the combined effect of the determinations will ensure that the public and reputation of the profession are safeguarded into the future.
34. We say in closing that we are also mindful of the contribution Mr Maxwell has made to his profession over the years. We recognise that Mr Maxwell having completed his pharmacy degree at the Victoria Pharmacy College in 1987 has had a long, successful working career. He worked for a number of years at the Werribee local pharmacy from about 1988 to 1994. He then worked with his brother, who is also a pharmacist, from 1994 to the year 2000 at a pharmacy in Hawthorn, until he and his wife took over that pharmacy themselves. He has, in this respect, contributed much to the profession. We read outstanding character references.

1. Mr Maxwell is reprimanded
2. Mr Maxwell's registration is suspended for a period of 12 months from today's date
3. Conditions are imposed on the registration of Mr Maxwell in accordance with the attached Appendix A to these orders.
4. Pursuant to section 196 (3) of the National Law, the review period for the conditions referred to in order (4) above is 12 months.

1. The Practitioner must only take substances prescribed, approved, or administered by a nominated treating practitioner(s) and such nominated treating practitioner(s) may not be a relative, friend, professional colleague or in a contractual or financial relationship with the Practitioner.

For the purposes of this condition 'substance' is defined as any illicit substance as well as any pharmacist only, prescription only and any controlled drug medication as contained in Schedule 3, 4 or 8 in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medications and Poisons (the SUSMP) as amended from time to time and as published at https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/poisons-standard-susmp.

1. Upon returning to practice, the Practitioner must commence random urine drug screening (UDS) and hair analysis for drug screening (hair analysis) in accordance with AHPRA's protocol for UDS and hair analysis (the protocol).

The Practitioner must commence UDS and hair analysis at Group One frequency or as otherwise advised by AHPRA and must continue to attend at this frequency until the Board approves otherwise.

1. At least 14 days prior to returning to practice, the Practitioner must provide to AHPRA:

1. Acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPF6), that they understand the requirements of the protocol as it pertains to urine and hair drug screening and they are aware of AHPRA's monitoring of this condition.

2. The details, on the approved form (HPF6), of all current substances that have been prescribed or administered to or approved for them, along with the contact information of all prescribing practitioners who have, or are likely to, prescribe, approve or administer substances.

1. Upon returning to practice the Practitioner must undertake treatment with the treating practitioners and attend at a frequency determined by the treating practitioners.

1. At least 14 days prior to returning to practice, the Practitioner must provide the following to AHPRA:

1. The contact details, on the approved form (HPF3), of all treating practitioners.

2. Acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPF3), from the Practitioner that AHPRA may seek reports from the treating practitioners in relation to the treatment undertaken by the practitioner:
   • (i) upon return to practice; and
   • (ii) on a 3 monthly basis thereafter.

1. Confirmation, on the approved form (HPNA3), from the treating practitioner(s) that they have seen a copy of the conditions on the Practitioner's registration and are aware AHPRA may contact them to seek reports.

1. Prior to returning to practice, the Practitioner must undertake and successfully complete a program of education, approved by the Pharmacy Board of Australia and including a reflective practice report, in relation to:

2. Prior to undertaking the program of education referred to in condition 6, the Practitioner must, on the approved form (HPN24), nominate for approval by Pharmacy Board of Australia ​an education course, assessment or program (the education) addressing the topics required. The Practitioner must ensure:

1. the nomination includes a copy of the curriculum of the education

1. the education consists of a minimum 65 hours including the topics listed in condition 6, and

1. the education contains a formal assessment component in relation to the topics listed in condition 6.​

1. Within 28 days of the completion of the education, the Practitioner must provide to AHPRA:

1. Evidence of successful completion of the education.

2. A reflective practice report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the Practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to this condition and how the Practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the education into the Practitioner's practice.

1. Evidence of having undertaken and successfully completed the formal assessment component of the education.

1. At least 14 days prior to the Practitioner returning to practice, the Practitioner must provide to AHPRA, on the approved form (HPC), the contact details of a senior person, such as the Pharmacist Manager or equivalent (the senior person) at each current place of practice. In providing this form, the Practitioner acknowledges that AHPRA will contact the senior person and provide them with a copy of the conditions on the Practitioner's registration or confirm that the senior person has received a copy of the conditions from the Practitioner, and the Practitioner will be required to provide the same form:

1. within seven days of the commencement of practice at each and every subsequent place of practice, and

2. within seven days of each and every notice of any subsequent alteration of these conditions.

1. All costs associated with compliance with the conditions on their registration are at the Practitioner's own expense.

1. Pursuant to section 196 (3) of the National Law, the review period for the conditions referred to in order (2) above is 12 months.