//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2013] QCAT 236
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2013-04-15
Original judgment source is linked above.
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
[1] On 10 December 2010 Mr Charles Vue completed an application for general registration as a pharmacist under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ('National Law'). At the time, he held provisional registration which had been granted on 13 September 2010. Mr Vue's application for general registration was submitted to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) on 23 December 2010.
[2] In support of his application, Mr Vue included a document which purported to be notification from the Australian Pharmacy Council that he had attained an overall result of a pass in the October 2010 session of the pharmacy written examination. Successful completion of an examination conducted on behalf of the Pharmacy Board of Australia, including a written examination, was a requirement for eligibility for general registration.
[3] The document provided by Mr Vue was false and misleading. He had, in fact, failed the October 2010 session of the examinations. He had received notification of that failure from the Australian Pharmacy Council. Mr Vue altered the result shown on the document which he had received using a computer program.
[4] Mr Vue's deception was discovered quickly by AHPRA. It did not, at that time, grant him general registration. Rather, AHPRA notified him that it proposed not to grant him registration as he had not satisfied the criteria, and commenced an investigation into the matter. Mr Vue cooperated with that investigation.
[5] In the meantime, in February 2011, Mr Vue again sat the written examination. On this occasion he did achieve a pass result.
[6] On 9 March 2011 a new application for general registration was submitted by him to AHPRA. The Pharmacy Board of Australia favourably considered that second application for registration on 10 May 2011 and Mr Vue was registered on 19 May 2011. The Pharmacy Board approached that application on the basis that any proposed action regarding the earlier application should not affect his eligibility for registration as he had met the requirements under s 53(c) of the National Law. It considered that any proposed action concerning the earlier application could be taken at a later date.[2]
[7] Since obtaining his general registration Mr Vue has practiced as a pharmacist manager and pharmacist in charge in a remote country township in western Queensland. It is tolerably apparent from the material which has been filed in the Tribunal that Mr Vue has demonstrated a commendable level of commitment to that community, particularly in advancing health and wellbeing within it, and that he has the support of the community.
[8] The matter has proceeded before the Tribunal on the basis that Mr Vue's conduct is such that the Tribunals powers under s 196 of the National Law are engaged.
[9] The Board had proposed a sanction, with which Mr Vue agrees, by which Mr Vue would be reprimanded and would be required to undertake a course in ethical decision making approved by the Board. Mr Vue would also be required to nominate an appropriate pharmacist who would be prepared to act as his mentor and indicate in writing the basis of the proposed mentoring for the Board's approval. The mentoring would be provided, at Mr Vue's expense, over a six month period. It is appropriate that the 6 month period should commence from the date upon which the Board notifies its approval of the mentor and the program.
[10] The Board submits that the proposed sanction achieves the objective of the National Law to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practice in a competent and ethical manner are registered.[3] The Tribunal accepts that submission.
[11] The proposed sanction is consistent with achieving the purpose of proceedings such as these which is the protection of the public and the reputation of the profession; and not the punishment of the registrant.[4]
[12] There are a number of matters which, when taken into account, suggest that the proposed sanction is appropriate to serve that purpose and to meet those objectives. Reference has already been made to the apparently unblemished performance by Mr Vue of his professional responsibilities in a remote community and his professional and personal commitment to that community. It is in the public interest that that remote community should continue to have the benefit of those pharmacy services.
[13] In addition to those matters, Mr Vue's conduct occurred when he was relatively young. He was 22 years of age. He engaged in the conduct in the context of his family being under considerable financial strain and his feeling the burden of the need to provide financial support for them at that time, and to repay them for their contribution to his education.
[14] Also of significance is the considerable degree of genuine remorse which Mr Vue has shown. That remorse has been demonstrated not only by statements made by Mr Vue, but also through his cooperation with the Board's investigation; the frank admissions which he has made; his recognition that his conduct amounts to conduct for which he should be disciplined; and his agreement to pay the Board's costs of the proceedings.
[15] For these reasons, the Tribunal will make an order consistent with those proposed jointly by the parties.
[16] However, the order proposed by the parties is not stated in the form of conditions imposed on Mr Vue's registration. In order to satisfy s 196(2)(a) of the National Law the orders concerning his undertaking a course in ethical decision making and his undergoing a mentorship should be imposed as conditions on his registration. Furthermore, s 196(3) of the National Law requires the Tribunal also to decide a review period for the conditions imposed. I consider a review period of 1 year from the date of making the orders is appropriate.
[17] The orders which the Tribunal intends to make are attached to these reasons as a schedule. The parties shall have a period of 14 days from the date of publication of these reasons to make any submissions which they wish to make about the form of the orders proposed. The Tribunal will consider any submissions made about the form of the orders before finalising those orders.
[1] Section 52(1)(b)(ii) of the National Law; and Pharmacy Board of Australia Examinations for General Registration Standard.
[2] See agenda paper: Notification Committee - Pharmacy Board of Australia, 16 February 2012, paragraph 12. Document number 3 of the Agreed Bundle of Documents.
[3] Section 3(2)(a) of the National Law.
[4] Ooi v Medical Board of Queensland [1997] 2 Qd R 176 at 177.
Pharmacy Board of Australia
Vue [2013] QCAT 236