Psychology Board of Australia v Angelakis [2024] SACAT 24

Ground 1 - The respondent failed to maintain proper professional boundaries by engaging in non-clinical and personal communication and/or engaging in a social and/or close personal relationship with her client.
Ground 2 - The respondent engaged in an intimate and sexual relationship with a former client within 2 years of terminating a professional relationship.
Grounds 3 & 4 - The respondent provided false and/or misleading information to AHPRA and/or the applicant during self-notification and her first interview with AHPRA).

Psychology Board of Australia v Angelakis [2024] SACAT 24 | Case summary | Zoe

Dr Angelakis is 36 years of age. She holds Bachelor of Psychology (Honours) and Doctor of Philosophy (Clinical Psychology) degrees having graduated in 2014. She was registered as a psychologist (with an endorsement in clinical psychology) on the register maintained by the Board pursuant to the National Law, having first obtained provisional registration on 8 September 2010, general registration on 2 April 2014 and an endorsement in clinical psychology on 1 August 2014.
During the period relevant to the complaint (Relevant Period), the respondent practised as a clinical psychologist at PsychMed Pty Ltd (PsychMed) where from about December 2019 she was a director of that company.
The respondent specialises in the clinical treatment of trauma recovery through cognitive behaviour therapy.
Throughout the relevant period, the respondent was subject to the professional standards set out in the Australian Psychology Society (APS) Code of Ethics (2007) (Code), adopted by the Board in 2010 pursuant to s 39 of the National Law.
Craig Arthur (CA) is an Inspector of Police with the South Australia Police (SAPOL). In or around April 2019, CA was referred by a SAPOL human resources consultant to the respondent for treatment in respect of work related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) under the Return to Work Scheme. CA underwent clinical treatment with the respondent from 17 April 2019 until 19 July 2019 (Treatment Period). There were 17 treatment sessions in total.
It is common ground between the parties that on 20 July 2019, that is, the day after the clinical treatment concluded, the respondent and CA commenced a sexual relationship in contravention of the Code, having both apparently separated from their respective married spouses on the evening of 19 July 2019.
It was not until 7 February 2020 that the respondent (through her solicitor) made a self-notification to the Board (via the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)) providing written statements from herself and CA about the commencement date and circumstances surrounding their relationship. As a result of a disclosure Dr Angelakis made to the Practice Manager at PsychMed, a mandatory notification was also made by him to AHPRA on or about 10 February 2020. On 21 February 2020, AHPRA received a third mandatory notification from a confidential notifier.
As a result of the notifications, AHPRA commenced an investigation into the respondent's conduct. She was first formally interviewed on 27 May 2020. CA was also interviewed separately on that day.
Following that first interview, and as part of the ongoing investigations, AHPRA sent correspondence to the respondent using its investigative powers under Sch 5 to the National Law on 17 November 2020, requesting the production of any and all email correspondence between her and CA from personal accounts between 27 April 2019 and 23 July 2019 as well as any other correspondence during that period.
As a result of the documents produced by the respondent in answer to that request, she was formally interviewed a second time by the AHPRA investigators on 12 February 2021.
The respondent had conditions imposed on her registration by the Board pursuant to the immediate action provisions under s 156 of the National Law on 13 May 2021 requiring her to undertake counselling, education and supervision (concerning amongst other things, boundary violations and conflicts of interest). Those conditions were removed on 1 April 2022 following the provision of progress and completion reports.
The Tribunal upon the application of the Board at a preliminary hearing of these proceedings on 14 April 2022, issued a summons to SAPOL requiring the production of all emails exchanged between the respondent and CA before the first interview (including those exchanged after 23 July 2019). Those emails were provided (with the exception of some withheld as a result of a claim of legal professional privilege which the Board does not contest) on 19 August 2022.
The relationship between the respondent and CA has continued with them marrying on 8 January 2021.

[paragraphs 9-13 omitted] > > 14. With respect to paragraph 45 to 46, the Respondent: > > 14.1. .... > > 14.2. admits that she engaged in unprofessional conduct with respect to her ongoing romantic and sexual relationship with CA as alleged in Ground 2. > > 14.3. ... > > 14.4. in respect of paragraph 46: > > 14.4.1. ... the Respondent admits that her conduct in engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with CA was a breach of clauses C.1 and C.4.3 of the Code; > > 14.4.2. ... > > [subparagraphs 14.5-14.7 omitted] > > ... > > Ground 3 > > 15. The respondent denies paragraph 47 [of the Amended Referral]. > > [paragraphs 16-19 omitted] > > 20. With respect to paragraph 51: > > 20.1. ... > > 20.2 [the Respondent] admits the self-notification was not entirely accurate (notwithstanding that it was accurate about the most important matters raised in it, being the existence of a sexual relationship). > > 20.3. [the Respondent] admits that she was incorrect about the timing of certain events. > > 20.4. [the Respondent] denies she was deliberately dishonest. > > 20.5. [the Respondent] denies that a romantic relationship had commenced prior to 19 July 2019. > > 20.6. [the Respondent] says that August 2019 was the time from which the Respondent and CA genuinely considered themselves to be in a relationship, rather than the date on which intimacy of any type commenced. > > [sub-paragraphs 20.7-20.12 omitted] > > 20.13. with respect to paragraph 51.16: > > 20.13.1. the Respondent admits that the notification was made just over six months after the commencement of the personal relationship; and > > 20.13.2. says that the use of the word "shortly" should be read in the context of the self-notification including the admission it contained as to the romantic relationship commencing in August 2019; and > > 20.13.3. [the Respondent] denies that the use of the word "shortly" was, intended to be, false and misleading; and... > > [paragraphs 21 - 28 omitted] > > 29. With respect to paragraph 61, the Respondent: > > [sub-paragraphs 29.1-29.3 omitted] > > 29.4. admits that her admitted conduct with respect to Ground 3 constituted unprofessional conduct of a less serious type and denies that her conduct constituted professional misconduct. > > [sub-paragraphs 29.5-29.7 omitted] > > 30. The Respondent says in response to Ground 3 generally that: > > 30.1. at no time did she deliberately provide false and misleading information to AHPRA [or] the Applicant. > > 30.2. she had proactively approached AHPRA and informed it of her own conduct; > > [sub-paragraphs 30.3 - 30.8 omitted] > > ... > > Ground 4 > > 31. The Respondent denies paragraph 62 [of the Amended Referral] ... > > [paragraphs 32 - 33 omitted] > > 34. With respect to paragraph 65, the Respondent: > > 34.1. admits that some of the information previously provided by the Respondent was not accurate. > > 34.2. says that any inaccuracies were inadvertent... > > [sub-paragraphs 34.3 - 34.5 omitted] > > [paragraphs 35-37 omitted] > > 38. The Respondent says in response to Ground 4 generally that: > > [sub-paragraphs 38.1 - 38.3 omitted] > > 38.4. two separate allegations of unprofessional conduct for Grounds 3 and 4 is duplicative, where the Respondent's failing was in ensuring that she had certain facts correct when she approached and informed the Applicant of her conduct by self-notification and subsequent first interview: > > 38.5. ... > > 39. With respect to paragraph 69, the Respondent: > > 39.1. ... > > 39.2. admits that her conduct in Grounds 1 and 3 constituted unprofessional conduct. > > 39.3. admits that her admitted conduct in Ground 2 constitutes professional misconduct. > > 39.4. denies that Ground 4 constitutes any form of unprofessional conduct, let alone professional misconduct, and says that any breach of those obligations is adequately dealt with under Ground 3. > > ...

Both parties, prior to the hearing, obtained reports from professional experts essentially addressing the characterisation of the respondent's conduct and in the case of the respondent, her state of mind both at the time of her notification to AHPRA and her first interview in May 2020. In this respect, the Board relied upon the opinions of Dr Lisa Warren, Clinical/Forensic Psychologist who produced two reports[5] and was called to give evidence by the Board, and the respondent relied on the reports and oral evidence of Dr Christopher Lennings, Clinical Psychologist.[6]
The Board did not call evidence from any other witness other than Dr Warren. It relies heavily on the content of the email exchanges between the respondent and CA both during the treatment period and beyond, leading up to the respondent's self-notification to AHPRA and her first interview. These have been reproduced and the relevant emails are contained in the ASBOD. The Board also relies on the evidence of the AHPRA investigation (as relevant to the Tribunal's inquiry) including the respondent's self-notification and the transcripts of her formal interviews with AHPRA.
The respondent gave evidence at the hearing. She was meticulously led by her Senior Counsel regarding each of the Grounds and the particulars of the allegations and facts relied upon by the Board as detailed in the Initiating Application, the Amended Referral and the written Opening Address filed by the Board and served on the respondent on 5 May 2023. Dr Angelakis was subjected to a very detailed and thorough cross-examination by Mr Schatz over the best part of two days during which she was taken through the numerous emails and questioned about the commencement and circumstances of her relationship with CA, their exchanges about the ethics of the relationship, the timing and content of the notifications to AHPRA and her intentions at the time both of that notification and when she was first formally interviewed. The Tribunal was provided with a good opportunity to assess the credibility and reliability of the respondent during her lengthy stint in the witness box.
There were substantial legal issues raised by both Counsel at the end of the evidence during their final addresses. As the respondent elected not to call CA, this has given rise to the question of whether the Tribunal ought to exercise its discretion to draw any adverse inferences against the respondent in accordance with the principle in Jones v Dunkel.[7] Ms Walker has raised issues concerning firstly, the sufficiency of the 'Pleadings' especially regarding Grounds 3 and 4, and secondly, whether there was compliance with the rule in Browne v Dunn[8] when the respondent was cross-examined in relation to Grounds 3 and 4 and whether accordingly, there have been breaches of procedural fairness. As these legal issues have been raised by Counsel discreetly regarding certain grounds (and not more generally or as interlocutory issues requiring separate rulings) we intend to deal with these submissions in our discussion of the evidence and our ultimate findings in relation to the four Grounds of Complaint. We intend also to deal with Ground 1 and 2 separately, and Grounds 3 and 4 together as the evidence regarding those grounds is by and large common and interwoven.
There are two matters which we wish to raise before we embark on our discussion of the evidence and findings. The first is that it is important for us to set the framework by reference to the general legal principles applying in health disciplinary matters. The second issue is that as there was a very high volume of emails which were exchanged between the respondent and CA throughout the entire period relevant to all Grounds, we will be selective in our reference to only those which we consider are most relevant and pertinent to our determination of the complaints. The parties however can be assured that in coming to our decisions, we have considered carefully all the evidence before us (both written and oral).

From this date on, CA was forwarding emails to the respondent mostly via her personal email address which is in our view is a significant factor, because combined with the more personalised nature and frequency of the email communications between the two, it is apparent that there was a noticeable shift in the nature and tone of the email exchanges, particularly from 8 July 2019 away from a strictly professional relationship to a more personal relationship. It is also important to note, that up until 11 June 2019, the respondent and CA were only corresponding via her PsychMed email address.
Between 8-19 July (last treatment session), there was a particularly large exchange of emails in which the respondent and CA made disclosures about their personal interests, social activities and values, during which they discovered that they have many things in common and which they would like to do together including:
- Going for walks in the hills, and/or botanic gardens.[18]
- Drinking Gin.[19]
- Getting a house in the Adelaide hills.[20]
- Travelling (including skiing trips, camping and overseas).[21]
- Doing Yoga.[22]
- Maintaining a 'Debt List'[23] of things to do together including:
  - going for walks;
  - travelling;
  - drinking Gin;
  - yoga;
  - sitting in front of the fire at the Stirling Hotel;
  - watching gangster movies and other film and television productions set in New York.
On 8 July 2019, the respondent sent CA an email attaching a 'Self-Knowledge Worksheet' which she had administered on herself, disclosing to him her answers to the various questions including an assessment of personal values, interests, temperament, around-the-clock activities, life mission, meaningful goals and personal strengths.
Between 16-18 July 2019, there were several emails regarding an invitation by the respondent to have a 'catch-up' with CA the following weekend. During this correspondence, the respondent promised CA some 'self-disclosure [when they] finally organise a catch-up'.[24]
On the last day of treatment, 19 July 2019, there were a series of email exchanges throughout the day prior to the treatment session at about 4.00 pm. These are particularly concerning. From 7.32 am-2.33 pm there were some 10 emails including the following:

[6]

The respondent admits that between 8-19 July 2019 she: * attended F45 exercise classes with CA during the treatment period on 3-4 occasions.[33] * had takeaway coffee with CA on one occasion during the treatment period.[34] * exchanged emails with CA that were 'personal in nature and unprofessional' including emails she says in her oral evidence were jokes about going for walks together including walks in the hills, drinking 'Therapy Gin' together, getting a house together with a hills location and travelling together (including overseas).[35] 7. In her evidence, the respondent also admitted that she and CA later, did many of the things that she claims were jokes in the email exchanges between 8-19 July 2019 including walking together, drinking Gin together, buying a house together in the Adelaide Hills, travelling to Bali together and doing Yoga together.[36] 8. The Board contends that from 11 June 2019 there was a blurring of professional boundaries by the respondent which escalated to professional misconduct between 8-19 July 2019 within the s 5 definition of the National Law. The respondent admits to engaging in unprofessional conduct only during that period on the basis that, as submitted by Ms Walker, given that she had only been a practising psychologist for around five years at the time, her level of training and experience does not warrant a finding that her conduct, as admitted, falls substantially below the conduct one could reasonably expect in the circumstances. Ms Walker has referred the Tribunal to the Victorian Fair Work Commission Psychologist Enterprise Agreement document tendered in evidence which classifies psychologists according to their level of clinical experience.[37] 9. In assessing the conduct of a practitioner in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal may be assisted by the evidence of expert witnesses especially regarding appropriate professional standards. Dr Warren in her second report dated 21 March 2023 says that the respondent had a professional responsibility under Cl B.3 of the Code to provide psychological services to CA in a 'responsible manner', having regard to the nature of the psychological services she was providing and that this would include 'validation of the significant and complex nature of ending a marriage, particularly where children are involved'. Dr Warren goes on to say that CA's marriage problem was not the primary focus of the treatment but as the respondent was nonetheless aware of it, it was ethically incumbent on her to either offer time in therapy to discuss the situation or encourage CA to seek out other professional support. It should be noted that these comments were largely in response to the email exchanges between the respondent and CA on the second to last day of treatment (18 July 2019) concerning CA's disclosure about having a solid plan to break up amicably with his wife on account of their young children, and the respondent's response effectively endorsing that plan.[38] (It should be further noted that in our view, it is relevant that at the time, the respondent herself was in a very unhappy marriage). Dr Warren in her report went on to state that:[39]

Dr Warren gave evidence that the Ethical Guidelines on the Prohibition of Sexual Activity with Clients is an aid on how to interpret and apply the Code. She explained that there are three types of sexual activity with a client namely:
- sexual intercourse.
- sexual contact; and
- sexualising of the professional relationship by other behaviours.
Dr Warren gave evidence that she considers some of the content of the respondent's emails between 8-19 July 2019 were of a flirtatious nature and that 'flirting is not part of the psychologist-client relationship'.[40]
Dr Warren opines that some of the respondent's emails to CA contain sexualised comments. In particular, the respondent's comments on 19 July 2019: 'Can't wait to see you in uniform! Bet you drive the ladies mad', is a statement that sexualises the psychologist-client relationship and that the statement: '_I would love to have seen you being mistaken for the sexy strippe_r' is a statement which potentially sexualises the psychologist-client relationship.[41]
Dr Warren also said in evidence that there is an obligation on all psychologists to be aware of the ethical requirements of practice. She states: 'So, whether you are aware of them and fail to follow them or unaware of them once you are registered, the outcome is the same'.[42]
Dr Warren also refers to the concepts in the psychology discipline of 'transference' and 'counter-transference' where a client refers to scenarios such as storylines in a movie which they would like to replicate or avoid in their relationship with their psychologist and where a psychologist might use their own life experiences and perceptions to help the client understand their own behaviour. These are a legitimate means of treatment both inside and outside of a bona fide therapy setting during communications but here, with particular reference to the movie/television productions mentioned in the Sexy Stripper email, and in light of the preceding personal emails from 8 July 2019 in particular, Dr Warren says that Dr Angelakis should have been aware of transference and counter-transference in all of her interactions with CA and not just during treatment sessions.[43] The fact that she does not appear to have been, from our assessment of the content and tone of her email communications particularly between 12-19 July 2019, in our view, is indicative of serious boundary violations.
Dr Warren in evidence stated that the respondent should have set professional boundaries in place with the knowledge that CA was experiencing matrimonial problems and the fact which should have been apparent from the emails from that point on, is that he was forming a personal attachment to her and that might have affected the way in which he was interacting with his wife. It was not appropriate that the respondent was instead, talking about Gin, Cellars or walking with CA in the Adelaide Hills.[44]
In her second report, Dr Warren opines that the respondent's conduct falls substantially below the required standard by violating professional boundaries.[45] In cross-examination by Ms Walker, she stated that assuming there was no sexual intercourse and no intimate touching up to 19 July 2019 but rather a blurring of professional boundaries, it is probably:[46]

Dr Lennings has also provided two detailed reports at the request of the respondent's solicitor and he also gave oral evidence. He had the benefit of conducting a 90 minute interview with Dr Angelakis on 7 November 2021. Dr Warren's opinions are based on an objective assessment of the emails and other documents. Both expert witnesses were; however, provided with each other's reports and in evidence were able to explain their counter-views particularly about when there was a departure by the respondent from acceptable professional standards, and importantly, the degree of that departure. As previously mentioned, Dr Lennings, unlike Dr Warren, gave evidence about Dr Angelakis' state of mind by way of explanation as to why certain aspects of both the self-notification to the Board and her first interview with the AHPRA investigators were not accurate or false. We will discuss this evidence in further detail in our discussions concerning Grounds 3 and 4 of the Amended Referral later in these reasons.
At the outset, we note that Dr Lennings was very candid and direct in acknowledging on more than one occasion during his evidence that if the Tribunal, on our assessment of the of the evidence, make findings which differ from his expert opinions (such as whether any emails sent by the respondent to CA are sexualised), then his opinions would be irrelevant. As the trier of fact, it is trite law that a court or in this case a tribunal, is not obliged to accept the opinion of an expert.[48]
Regarding Ground 1, relevantly, Dr Lennings stated that in his view, he considers the email exchanges between the respondent and CA prior to 19 July 2019 were: 'clearly banter that is inappropriate ... I referred to it as flirting. The definition of flirting being not necessarily sexual but amusement.'[49]
However, regarding the email exchanges on 19 July 2019, prior to the last treatment session, and in particular, CA's references to 'When Harry Met Sally', 'Friends With Benefits' and 'Suits', he opines that it is clear that CA was giving the respondent 'a colossal hint' and that it would be 'hard not to get the view' that CA had 'sexualised the relationship with his clinician on the 19th'.[50] In regards to the respondent's responses to CA's emails on 19 July 2019 however, whilst conceding that the emails are 'worrying',[51] and with the knowledge that the respondent admits that her conduct between 8-19 July 2019 was unprofessional, Dr Lennings agrees the conduct was unprofessional because in his opinion, it only fell below the standard.[52] He goes on to say some of the emails the respondent sent and in particular, the Sexy Stripper email, fell 'further below the standard than others ... [and] this last exchange on the 19th is a very problematic one.'[53]
Dr Lennings goes on to say that if a practitioner were to deliberately sexualise a relationship, that would be conduct substantially below the standard.[54] If the psychologist-client relationship becomes sexualised without the psychologist intending for that to occur:[55]

The starting point in considering whether the Board has proved the Ground 1 allegation to the requisite standard[56] requires noting that the respondent admits that between 8-19 July, she did engage in unprofessional conduct. She does not accept that she has engaged in professional misconduct as she considers her behaviour does not constitute a substantial departure from the accepted professional standard given her level of training and experience at the time. The respondent said in her evidence-in-chief that the emails she sent to CA between 8-19 July 2019 and the out of treatment meetings with CA were boundary violations and that she let this occur because: 'I was kind of influenced by my feelings of like shame, anxiety, embarrassment and I didn't seek consultation and I should have sought consultation'.[57]
She also says in evidence that she was naïve at the time and that she did not consider that CA was less vulnerable because he was during that period in the 'catchment' stage of his treatment, that is, that the last two treatment sessions on 6 and 19 July 2019 were precautionary sessions only because he was no longer showing signs of PTSD or depression.[58]
The Board asserts that from 11 June 2019, that is, while CA was still being treated for PTSD and depression, there was a blurring of professional boundaries when the respondent gave CA her personal email address. From that date on, they say the email exchanges became more frequent, familiar in tone and personal in nature. The emails became more frequent and personal from 8 July 2019 leading to what the Board asserts were sexualised emails on 19 July 2019 and those matters are relevant to the proper characterisation of the conduct on the Board's case.
The respondent has explained in evidence that she uses her professional and personal email addresses interchangeably with all clients and she denies deliberately giving CA her personal email address.[59] We are sceptical about the respondent using her personal email address for professional purposes on a regular basis as we consider most professionals would not want a client to have their personal contact details to preserve proper ethical boundaries and not to be contactable out of hours. There is also the question of record keeping and interestingly here, a number of email exchanges between the respondent and CA via her personal email address were not kept on his client record. We note that with a few exceptions from 8-19 July 2019, the email exchanges between the respondent and CA were mainly via her personal email. We consider that it is more likely that the respondent wanted CA to have her personal email address because whether she consciously recognised it at the time or not, she felt an attraction towards him and she wanted to create an opportunity for a relationship to establish being in an unhappy marriage herself at the time. There is some support for this bearing in mind that a sexual relationship between the respondent developed very quickly after treatment ended on 19 July 2019, that they subsequently embarked on a committed relationship and married:

We consider that the respondent's email on 10 July 2019, her self-notification statement and her evidence as referred to above, demonstrate the respondent's true level of understanding of her ethical obligation to always maintain proper professional boundaries with CA and that even as early as 11 June 2019 she could read red flags and take appropriate action to avoid a boundary transgression. Sometimes, in our collective experiences, people will use humour or wit as an excuse or substitute for the truth. It is also apparent from the email that she trusted CA not to abuse her answers to the Worksheet questions which shows that by that stage, if not earlier, she regarded him as someone more than a client. It also demonstrates a level of insight about the fact that she knew when she sent that email it was inappropriate as she now recognises.
The respondent was also cross-examined about the series of invitation/catch-up emails she sent to CA between 16-18 July 2019 before the treatment period was concluded. The respondent initially minimised the significance of those emails, stating that she wanted to catch-up 'for networking' before adding that she wanted to 'socialise with CA and get to know him in a non-therapeutic way.'[67]
By that stage however, it is clear from the many emails passing between them from 8-15 July 2019 they already knew a lot about each other through the Self-Knowledge Worksheet and their email exchanges, the references to Walks in the Hills and Botanic Gardens, the Gin, F45 Gym, Yoga, drinks by the fire at the Stirling Pub, their common interests in cars, books, films and travel. They were corresponding mostly via the respondent's personal email and making jokes about not engaging with therapy but using that time to be together doing other things like drinking Gin. There were jokes in their emails on 11 July 2019 about the respondent doing "strange Yoga poses" in her office and 'therapy with Gin, maybe that's something I should keep in mind for our upcoming sessions'.[68]
The degree of overfamiliarity by this stage was well past the professional boundary. For example, the email from the respondent to CA at 11.31 am on 12 July 2019:[69]

On 12 July 2019 at 12.34 pm CA in an email to the respondent jokes about therapy with Gin/organic wine at the botanical gardens, needing a double session and in response to the respondent's Stirling Pub comments says: 'Stirling Pub- I so wish that was an invite.' To which the respondent replies at 1.25 pm: '... Go ahead and hold me to it. I'm always happy to go for walks in the hills ... who know [sic] we could end up at Stirling, in front of the fire anyway! Plus, I'd love to see you try to interrogate me'.[70]
It is also noticeable that from 12 June 2019, CA had progressed from addressing the respondent from Samantha to 'Sam' or 'Miss Sam', or 'Miss S'.
We reject the respondent's evidence about wanting to catch up with CA outside of therapy for 'networking' purposes or to socialise or to get to know him. We consider this was another example of the respondent not being truthful. Her answers on this topic are contrary to all the evidence before us. We note that the respondent persisted over a period of three days to arrange a catch-up with CA with a date finally being settled on for the weekend (initially Sunday) immediately following the last treatment session on 19 July 2019.
That conveniently brings us to the email exchanges on 19 July 2019. There were 10 emails exchanged between the respondent and CA between 7.32 am and 2.33 pm on the day of the last session as previously stated. We won't repeat the content of those emails as they have been already discussed in detail and occupied a large part of the evidence of Drs Warren and Lennings regarding Ground 1 of the Amended Referral. In relation to the respondent, it is clear from her evidence that she understood the references in CA's email to 'When Harry Met Sally', and 'Friends With Benefits' even if at that stage, she had not seen the episode of 'Suits'. She certainly was aware of the well-known 'orgasm scene' in 'When Harry Met Sally' and referred in her email to CA to having attended at the diner where the scene was filmed and having ordered a Ruben sandwich and Matzo Ball soup.[71] She was also able to give an account of what the film 'Friends With Benefits' was about generally (although the title speaks for itself). In both cases, these were sexual references that CA was making, prior to the last treatment session later that afternoon and the respondent would have understood those references. In her evidence however, she claimed that she did not necessarily interpret CA's references as sexual. In our view, she was clearly minimising the extent of her awareness or for that matter whether she had even thought about any sexual innuendos when she received the email. We reject her evidence that she 'cannot say with 100% certainty'[72] that she didn't think about the 'orgasm' scene in the very same diner which she had visited, was aware the scene was shot there and even remembered what she ordered when she visited New York, a place that she and CA had talked a lot about in their email exchanges prior to 19 July 2019. That scene surely would have been the first thing that would have come to her mind when she read the email. Her evidence does not have a ring of truth about it, regarding these emails.
Dr Warren considers that the respondent's comments in response to CA's story about 'the sexy stripper' potentially sexualises the psychologist-client relationship but that the email in which the respondent says that she wouldn't mind seeing CA in uniform and that she bets he drives the ladies mad did sexualise the relationship at that point in time as previously discussed. Dr Lennings does not agree but concedes the emails on 19 July 2019 are 'problematic'. and that the respondent's responses to CA's emails were inappropriate, unprofessional and entering 'dangerous territory'.
Dr Warren based her assessments on the definition of sexual activity contained in the Sexual Activity Guidelines to the Code as 'other conduct that sexualises the professional relationship'. Ms Walker has urged the Tribunal to find that the Guidelines do not form part of the Code and do not appear to have been formally approved by the Board under s 39 of the National Law, as we understand her argument. Accordingly, she submits we should not accept that evidence. Dr Warren makes plain in her evidence that the Guidelines are meant to be an aid to the interpretation and application of the Code, which has been approved by the National Regulator. We note that she has been a serving member of the APS Ethics Committee for four years and has a strong working knowledge of the APS Code of Conduct and the Guidelines.[73] We also note her qualifications as an expert witness (which are not in dispute). We reject Ms Walker's submission and accept the Guidelines are relevant. Section 39 of the National Law specifically states that a National Board may 'develop and approve codes and guidelines' (our emphasis). We consider that the Guidelines are of assistance in the interpretation of what constitutes sexual activity in much the same way as a Regulation to an Act of Parliament may define prescribing provisions of the Act.
Dr Lennings does not agree that any of the respondent's emails in response to CA's emails are sexualised in content. He does however as previously stated, consider they are 'problematic, inappropriate, unprofessional and dangerous territory'. He considers that CA's references to 'When Harry Met Sally', 'Friends With Benefits' and 'Suits' are of a sexual content. However, he is of the opinion that unless the respondent was demonstrating some suggestiveness herself, that the content of her email responses to CA is not sexualised. It should be noted that Dr Lennings watched snippets of these productions via the electronic links provided by the Board's solicitors during his evidence as he explained that he is not normally disposed to watching films or television and he had not seen any of these productions before giving evidence.
It appears from the evidence that both Dr Warren and Dr Lennings agree whether the respondent's email responses on 19 July 2019 are considered to be sexualised in content (in the case of Dr Warren) or not (in the case of Dr Lennings), her conduct fell below the standard reasonably expected of a registered psychologist. However, where they differ is that Dr Lennings is of the opinion that the conduct fell 'below the standard' with some conduct being 'more below than others'. Dr Warren on the other hand considers that if all of the communications that occurred during the treatment period (and not just those on 19 July 2019 which in themselves may constitute unprofessional conduct as opposed to professional misconduct within the s 5 definitions of the National Law), then the blurring of boundaries, the casualised overfamiliar nature of those communications up to 19 July 2019 and the sexualisation or potential sexualisation of emails on that date lead her to the conclusion that if each one is below the standard, the accumulation of the conduct and the fact that the respondent did not seek supervision or take any corrective action when she should have, the conduct is substantially below that which could be reasonably be expected: i.e., professional misconduct.[74]
It is important to note that Dr Lennings gave a rider to the conclusions stated in his reports, when he stated in his evidence firstly, that if a practitioner deliberately sexualises a relationship that would be 'substantially below the standard'[75] and secondly, that it is a significant departure from the standard where a practitioner allows the psychologist-client relationship to become sexualised without them intending for that to happen, if 'they've not taken appropriate action when the signs reveal themselves to ensure it doesn't happen.'[76]
We turn to an important piece of evidence that was raised by both Counsel and referred to by the expert witnesses. Following the last treatment session, as previously mentioned, within about an hour of its termination, the respondent sent an email to CA wanting to bring forward the arranged catch-up from the Sunday to the Saturday. She began that email by stating that she did not want to appear 'too eager' which on our assessment of the evidence, was exactly what she was, namely eager to catch up with CA. The pair met at the respondent's sisters house the following night and it is common ground that is when their sexual relationship commenced. We will discuss this in further detail shortly when we discuss Ground 2 of the Amended Referral.
On 20 July 2019, CA sent the email to the respondent in which he refers to 'thinking back to your touch' (at the last treatment session), previously referred to. The question was raised whether anything sexual occurred during that last session with the respondent during her evidence to which she responded that she did not know what CA was referring to in his email, but she concedes that there may have been some incidental touching of a non-sexual nature such as a brush of his uniform, a handshake or a hug goodbye. She says, if there was some physical contact then it must have been more significant to CA than to her.[77] It is relevant in our view, that on 20 July 2020 before the catch-up at the respondent's sisters house, at 1.30 pm CA sent her an email stating (amongst other things): 'I am definitely keen to go back over the closing comments yesterday!! Very much [grinning emoji].'7[78]That comment coupled with the subsequent Touch email would tend to suggest that something physical may have occurred at that last treatment session or at the very least, something said that left both the respondent and CA in no doubt that they were about to embark upon a physical relationship if that had not already occurred. The timing of their first sexual intimacy on the night after treatment ended tends to corroborate this. There is also further email evidence which supports that something of a sexual nature may have occurred during that last treatment session. At 2.01 pm on 20 July 2019, the respondent sent CA an email stating: 'You sound like an excited schoolboy! But I admit I do have butterflies too'.7[79]
In his response, apart from referring to 'the touch', CA also prefaces that comment with: '... I keep thinking about yesterday and I close my eyes so I can remember the details-not good when driving but no crashes yet.'[80]
The tone and the timing of that email when read in the context of all preceding emails especially between the period from 8-19 July 2019 during treatment - when it is clear on our assessment of these emails that the respondent and CA were getting to know each other on an intimate and personal level and were flirting, is suggestive that some contact such as a kiss or embrace or even a romantic holding or touching of the hands may have occurred at the conclusion of that last treatment session.
The difficulty for the Tribunal in making a positive finding to that effect, however, is that the only evidence before us is the evidence of the respondent and the email exchanges between her and CA, the only two people who would know what really occurred during that last treatment session. We have already stated that we did not find the respondent to be a satisfactory witness in relation to other topics. However, she does concede that there may have been some incidental touching although of a non-sexual nature and she says she does not know what CA was referring to when he mentioned the touch in his email.

CA was not called to give evidence at the trial. Mr Schatz has submitted that it is open to the Tribunal to invoke the Jones v Dunkel discretion and to draw the inference that the reason he wasn't called is that his evidence would not have assisted the respondent's case on this issue. Ms Walker submits that there is no basis to invoke the discretion because these proceedings are disciplinary in nature and do not concern CA's conduct. Ms Walker has referred us to the case of Primrose Meadows Pty Ltd v River View Pty Ltd,[81] in which the Victorian Supreme Court held that a tribunal (in that case the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)) is not compelled to apply the rule. We consider that the same applies to this Tribunal under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act). It was further held in that case that the rule only applies where the missing witness would be expected to be called by one party rather than the other. Ms Walker submits that CA provided the Board with a written statement, and he was interviewed by the AHPRA investigators and at the conclusion of that interview, offered to assist further if they required. No approach was made by the Board to question CA about what he was referring to in his emails or whether there had been any touching of a sexual nature at the last treatment session. The respondent has consistently denied that anything of a sexual or intimate nature occurred between her and CA during the treatment period and specifically on 19 July 2019. CA also denies that there was any physical contact between him and the respondent during treatment in his interview.
The flaw in Ms Walker's submission that it was open to the Board to call CA on this and other issues (which we will discuss further in relation to Grounds 3 and 4), is that as a model litigant, it can hardly be expected that the Board would call CA knowing that his allegiance is to the respondent and not accepting him as a witness of truth. Although the AHPRA Model Litigant Policy is silent on the issue of calling or not calling witnesses, the obligations otherwise imposed on a national health regulator to bring referral proceedings, require it to act honestly and fairly in handling litigation, including acting with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards in keeping with the objects and principles of the National Law to protect the public and to be accountable. We consider that this requires the Board and AHPRA to ensure that the Tribunal, as the trier of facts has before it all relevant evidence, whether helpful to the Board's case or not so that the Tribunal can arrive at the truth. That obligation, however, does not extend to calling a witness who the Board does not consider is truthful or reliable, in much the same way as the Director of Public Prosecutions, in accordance with his office's policies is not expected to call a witness who in the opinion of the prosecutor, is 'plainly unreliable or untrustworthy'.[82]
If the Board had called CA on this (or any other issue), then assuming his evidence would be consistent with his letter of support to the Board and his interview with the AHPRA investigators, the Board would have been in the unenviable position of having to apply to cross-examine their own witness. We therefore reject the respondent's submission that it was open to the Board to call CA and that because it did not do so, that the Tribunal should not draw any adverse inferences because the respondent did not call him. We are of the view that in relation to the Touch email, CA was not called because he would not have assisted the respondent's case on this issue; that is, that there was no physical touching at the last treatment session.
That leaves us to consider whether on the evidence before us we can make a formal finding with comfortable satisfaction that there was some form of physical touching (of a sexual or intimate nature) during the last treatment session on 19 July 2019. Whilst we have very strong suspicions that there may have been, we cannot be satisfied to the Briginshaw standard that it did based on the email evidence discussed above and our assessment of the respondent's credibility, not having heard from CA directly or having the opportunity to assess his credibility. The reference to a touch in the emails is vague and ambiguous.
We turn now to our findings in relation to the boundary violations and to the characterisation of the respondent's conduct in that regard. Before we address those matters however, we wish to raise the following:

We also reject Dr Lenning's evidence that the respondent's conduct between 8-19 July 2019 fell only below the accepted professional standard. We are satisfied and accordingly find that Dr Angelakis' conduct fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a psychologist of her level of training and experience. As previously stated, she had been in clinical practice for about five years in 2019 and specialised in trauma counselling and cognitive behaviour therapy working with vulnerable patients. She would have been well aware of her ethical obligation not to cross professional boundaries and the importance of not conducting multiple relationships with clients. Even though the violation occurred during the 'catchment phase' of CA's treatment, and that the evidence suggests the two sessions on 6 and 19 July 2019 were more in the nature of preventative therapy for PTSD and depression rather than the active treatment, it matters not, because at that stage, CA was still her client to whom she owed a duty of care. He was also experiencing a marriage break-up involving young children and it is clear from the evidence of Dr Warren that the respondent's behaviour in not handling that aspect of his presentation, was questionable.
We reject the respondent's submission that her conduct between 8-19 July 2019 amounted to no more than unprofessional conduct. Even if we were to assess her conduct as falling below the standard reasonably expected, it was repeated conduct over a period and as stated by Dr Warren, that would make it conduct falling substantially below the standard. There was the initial blurring of boundaries previously discussed from 11 June 2019 which escalated from 8 July 2019 at which time the psychologist-client relationship started to become more personalised until the end of the treatment period.
We are satisfied and accordingly find that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the definition of s 5(a) and (b) of the National Law between 8 July 2019 and 19 July 2019, because she failed to maintain proper professional boundaries with her client CA in breach of Clauses B.3 (g) and C.3.1 of the APS Code of Ethics by:

The respondent's self-notification letter was supported with a letter from CA[106] in which he states that the respondent was 'always professional' during the treatment period, that she never said or did anything that made him think she was attracted to him although he was attracted to her, that he never 'probed into her personal life' during the treatment period and in the weeks after therapy had finished, he wanted to 'engineer a situation whereby a romantic relationship became possible'. He goes on to state: 'I believe it were these interactions that led to the feelings becoming shared and within 4-6 weeks, we entered into a relationship'.[107] The Board asserts these statements are inconsistent with the evidence and that the exchange of personal information between the respondent and CA commenced from 12 June 2019 and continued via their email exchanges particularly from 8-19 July 2019 during the treatment period culminating with them commencing a sexual relationship the day after treatment ended and on 21 July 2019, that is, the day after the sexual relationship commenced, they agreed to delete the earlier emails, the Board contends, for the purpose of concealing information or evidence about how and when, the unethical relationship began.
In her Amended Response, the respondent admits that the self-notification was not entirely accurate and that she was not correct about the timing of certain events. She denies that she was deliberately dishonest and that a romantic relationship had commenced with CA prior to 19 July 2019. In her evidence, the respondent explained that the confusion about the timing and the extent to which the relationship had progressed were matters she didn't recall because she did not have copies of the emails which she and CA had deleted, and upon them being retrieved (before her second interview with AHPRA), she was surprised to learn of their content. The Board contends it is not likely that the respondent would not recall the content and timing of the emails in circumstances where both the respondent and CA talk about their sentimentality and reluctance to delete the personal 'pre-planning' emails and where the respondent states that sometimes she re-reads them when she is alone.
Ground 4 relates to the respondent's first interview with AHPRA on 27 May 2020. It is important to note that unlike the self-notification, the interview involved a caution being given to the respondent at the commencement of the interview that she was not obliged to say anything that may incriminate her (privilege against self-incrimination). The Board takes issue with various statements the respondent made during that interview about her communications with CA, and the timing and progress of her relationship with CA. The Board has particularised the statements in issue in its Amended Referral and we reproduce those in full here:[108]

63. During the First Interview, the Respondent: > > 63.1 was asked about her communications with CA during the Treatment Period. She answered that she only sent a couple of emails to CA that were 'nothing outside of those ordinary professional...discussions' and that were 'treatment focussed' (BD251-252/[432]-[435]: emphasis added); > > 63.2 stated that, during the Treatment Period, she did not speak with CA outside of 'formal therapy sessions" at all apart from the "couple of emails" referred to at [63.1] in which she "just sent him worksheets" (BD251/ [426]- [427: emphasis added); > > 63.3 stated that "...things transpired pretty much the day after therapy but therapy was therapy" for CA (BD252/ [437]: emphasis added); > > 63.4 stated that while she and CA "did discuss his family in brief it didn't become a big issue for his treatment" (BD227/ [92]: emphasis added); > > 63.5 stated she did not discuss any specific details about her "personal life" with CA during treatment (BD227/ [97]-[98]; emphasis added); > > 63.6 stated she did not discuss the "possibility of a relationship" with CA during therapy (BD252/[444]-[445]: emphasis added); > > 63.7 answered a question about whether she had "an attraction" toward CA during the Treatment period by stating: > > I can say like we had a good therapeutic rapport and connection but not an attraction (BD252/[449]: emphasis added); > > 63.8 stated that she did not give CA any advice on either "improving or terminating his relationship" with his wife (BD253/9464]- [465]: emphasis added); > > 63.9 stated that she did not encourage CA to leave his relationship with his wife at all and: > > I just didn't talk about like what he should or shouldn't do in that relationship at all (BD254/[470-473]: emphasis added); > > 63.10 stated the personal relationship with CA commenced following the end of the Treatment when CA asked for her telephone number on 19 July 2019 and then called her on 20 July 2019 asking if she wanted to catch up (BD228-229/[112]-122); > > 63.11 stated that she was 'quite surprised' that CA asked for her telephone number at the end of the last treatment session on 19 July 2019 and was 'naïve' as to the reason CA made the request (BD228/[112]); > > 63.12 stated CA called her on 20 July 2019 while she was staying at her "sister's house" and, during their telephone conversation, indicated "he wanted to instigate a situation of just meeting up together" [emphasis added and that, at the time: > > ... it was kind of phrased as like I'm going through something tough, you're going through something tough, you know we, we you know can talk to one another, let's just meet up and have a chat and kind of like just a friendly catch up [BD230/122: emphasis added] > > 63.13 stated CA did not know a great deal about her before the Sister's House Meeting (BD232/[154]; > > 63.14 indicated that, during the Treatment Period, she did not mention: > > 63.14.1 her husband 'Mike' at all (BD233/ [160]; > > 63.14.2 she was in a relationship, and it was "quite a shock" to CA to find out she was married at the Sister's House Meeting (BD229/ [122] and BD233/ [160]; > > 63.14.3 she was married (BD268/ [633]; > > 63.15 stated that CA "set up" the first couple of "catch ups" after the Treatment Period (BD246/ [345]: (emphasis added); and > > 63.16 stated that CA "pursued" her (BD268/ [633]: emphasis added).

According to the Amended Referral,[109] it is alleged that the respondent made false and misleading statements about:
- The extent, nature and timing of her communications with CA during the treatment period (including the extend of personal information shared).
- The nature of her relationship with CA during the Treatment period.
- Whether the respondent found CA attractive during the Treatment Period.
- Whether she communicated with CA during the Treatment Period about terminating his relationship with his wife and/or having a relationship with her.
- The timing and circumstances regarding the commencement of the relationship with CA.
- Her role in instigating inappropriate non-clinical contact with CA and in encouraging and fostering such a relationship.
The Board relies on the email evidence we have previously discussed which establishes that following the provision of her personal email address to CA on 11 June 2019, there was a change in the tone and volume of emails which became increasingly personal, flirtatious and non-therapy focussed particularly during the period from 8-19 July 2019 leading up the commencement of their sexual relationship on 20 July 2019. The evidence also discloses that the respondent and CA spoke outside of formal therapy sessions on several occasions during the Treatment Period and attended the gym (F45) together on at least four occasions and had coffee together at least once. The email correspondence the respondent sent to CA on 8 July 2019 attaching the Self-Knowledge Worksheet and her own answers indicates an exchange of personal information between the two about their values and interests during the treatment period. It is clear from the emails from 16-18 July 2019 that it was the respondent who was keen to establish a catch up with CA and that she was eager for that to occur hence her email invitation to him about one hour after treatment concluded on 19 July 2019. It is also clear from the email correspondence that during the Treatment Period that both were aware of their marital problems and that the respondent not only did nothing to professionally assist CA in resolving his situation but she actively endorsed his plans to break up prior to the last treatment session and following, that she joked about him being a good 'break up counsellor' and she took the credit of being CA's 'silver bullet' when he finally did break up with his wife. Accordingly, the Board asserts that at the time of making the statements complained of in her first interview with AHPRA, the respondent knew that the information was false or misleading or in the alternative, she was reckless.
In her Amended Response, Dr Angelakis admits that some of the information previously provided was not accurate. Any inconsistencies she asserts were inadvertent and that her failing was in not ensuring that she had certain facts correct when she self-notified and when she was first interviewed by AHPRA. The respondent also asserts that the two separate allegations in Grounds 3 and 4 are duplicative, and that the Tribunal ought to deal with them as one Ground.

Ms Walker makes the valid point that the rule in Browne v Dunn is particularly important in a case such as this where the credit of a witness, in this case Dr Angelakis, is very much in issue particularly if the Tribunal were to find that she deliberately or recklessly gave false statements and misled the Board and AHPRA, as we could only do so by making a positive finding on our subjective assessment of her state of mind at the time, which would require us to reject her evidence.
We note that the Amended Referral of the Board dated 13 October 2022, in paragraphs [50] and [65] relating to Grounds 3 and 4 respectively, particularises what statements are alleged to be false and misleading in respect of the self-notification and the first interview and there is detailed reference in both cases to the evidence relied upon to establish the circumstances or grounds for reasonably believing that the statements are false. On 5 May 2023, that is, 19 days prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Board's solicitors filed Mr Schatz's written opening which consists of 43 pages. There are detailed references to each of the Grounds with reference to the evidence relied upon by the Board upon which it submits findings can be made to substantiate each ground. Mr Schatz also gave an oral opening address on the first day of trial in which he summarised the Board's case against Dr Angelakis.
Mr Schatz in response, submits that it is not necessary to put to the respondent that she is lying or not telling the truth about every allegation as long as the fact of the statements made are challenged and the Board's case is clear. Here, Mr Schatz argues that the Board made its case clear in the Amended Referral and its Opening Written Outline.
Before we make a ruling in respect of the Browne v Dunn issue, we need to address the ancillary matter raised by Ms Walker regarding the sufficiency of the 'Pleadings" as this is relevant to our assessment as to whether the respondent was sufficiently appraised of the Board's case against her (in respect of all Grounds but especially Grounds 3 and 4) prior to, and at the time of the hearing.
In Williams v Medical Practitioner's Board of Victoria,[153] the relevant Tribunal, at [51], noted that:

We note that the respondent did not make any interlocutory applications concerning the sufficiency of the Amended Referral and particularisation of any of the Grounds prior to the commencement of the trial hearing. Nothing was raised by her Senior Counsel at the commencement of the hearing, following the Board's opening or prior to the close of the Board's case. We also note in any event, Ms Walker meticulously led her client on each of the statements set out in the Amended Referral which the Board says are false or misleading regarding both the self-notification and the First interview, and invited her responses, which Dr Angelakis was able to give and about which there is no ambiguity. Indeed, the Tribunal raised with the respondent's Counsel during closing submissions that because of the detail in the Amended Referral and the Board's opening statements, Dr Angelakis could not have been under any misapprehension as to what allegations she was facing and we note that Dr Angelakis who was sitting in the body of the hearing room behind her Counsel nodded in indication that she was not.[156]
Mr Schatz has appropriately raised s 43 of the SACAT Act which imposes an obligation on the Tribunal to ensure that the parties to any proceedings understand the nature of the matter under consideration and have the opportunity to be heard as a matter of fairness. Mr Schatz has correctly submitted that it would be open for the Tribunal to allow the respondent to be recalled to give further evidence if we consider any unfairness has been caused by the fact that he did not specifically put in cross-examination all of the grounds upon which the Board is inviting the Tribunal to disbelieve the respondent in relation to the various statements she made regarding Grounds 3 and 4.
We do not consider that there has been any unfairness to the respondent because the particulars concerning Grounds 3 and 4 in the Amended Referral are sufficiently detailed and together with the written and oral opening statements of the Board's Counsel and the manner in which her evidence was led by her Senior Counsel, Dr Angelakis was in no doubt what statements in her self-notification and what answers to the questions she was asked in her first interview are alleged to be false or misleading and the reason why on the Board's case. She was also provided with an opportunity to respond to those allegations during her evidence in chief. In any event, she does not deny that the statements identified are false or inaccurate and she has been able to explain that she was confused about the timelines and about some of the circumstances concerning her relationship with CA because at the time of making her self-notification and participating in the interview, she did not have the emails which she and CA deleted. Accordingly, we find there is no basis on which to disallow the evidence or to reject the Board's submissions regarding these two Grounds, bearing in mind in any event, given the nature of these proceedings as described by Doyle CJ in Jordan, the Browne v Dunn rule may not apply.
We turn now to Ms Walker's submission concerning the issue of whether there has been duplication in the manner in which Grounds 3 and 4 have been pleaded. We are not aware of any legal authorities on point, nor have we been referred to any authorities by Counsel. The two Grounds in question are discreet in terms of time, there being a period of about three months between the making of the self-notification and the first interview. In addition, there is a distinct difference in the content of statements alleged, for example, the respondent made no mention in her self-notification about the email exchanges with CA and did not mention the catch-up on 20 July 2019 when they kissed. We consider that the Grounds involve separate and discreet allegations such that they are not duplicative and have accordingly, been appropriately pleaded.

We do not accept the respondent's evidence that she did not deliberately or recklessly mislead the Board or AHPRA.
It is obvious from the email correspondence between the respondent and CA between 21-31 July 2019, that they were both aware of her ethical obligations and were consciously concerned about the ramifications on her professional career should it become known to others (and particularly the Regulator), that she had breached her professional obligations by encouraging and commencing a relationship with a client.
We do not accept that CA's comments about their relationship on 31 July 2019 (about them not having engaged in sexual intercourse and being respectful of the respondent's ethical obligations) were meant in jest. As a high ranking police officer, he above all others should be aware of evidentiary matters and records. His email correspondence on that date, smacks of an audacious attempt to deceive the authorities about the true nature of his relationship with the respondent and she herself, admitted in evidence that she was aware that it was incorrect and did not accurately reflect their relationship. The fact of that relationship is not in our view, a topic for jocularity especially with the knowledge of Dr Angelakis' ethical obligations under the Code and the potential ramifications of breaching it, which is evident from the series of emails between them on this topic. We do note that it is very evident from the voluminous emails passing between the respondent and CA, that he has a tendency to express his humour by the use of emojis, but that he did not do so when he stated: The main point is that there has been no 'sexual activity' between us-ever.
We also reject Dr Lenning's opinions and evidence regarding shame-based cognition. Dr Lennings struck us as a somewhat eccentric academic who has limited understanding about popular culture and in particular, CA's references to 'When Harry Met Sally', 'Friends With Benefits' and 'Suits' - productions which he had not seen and had limited understanding about except in a very general sense and from the short excerpts provided by the Board's solicitors as previously mentioned.
We disagree with Dr Lenning's interpretation of the nature of the email exchanges between the respondent and CA, especially those between 8-19 July 2019. He did not have the benefit of our observations and assessments of Dr Angelakis over a two-day period, a much greater period of time than 90 minutes. We do not accept Dr Angelakis as a witness of truth. CA's comments in his email of 19 July 2019 regarding the episode of 'Suits' is particularly telling with reference to the timing and the remarkable similarity in the storyline to his and the respondent's relationship. The episode concerns a relationship which develops between a doctor therapist and her former client. There can be no doubting from that reference that CA was aware that it was wrong for him and the respondent to engage on a personal level given their professional association and even if we accept that the respondent did not know about the 'Suits' episode, from the other references she would have also known that it was unethical for her to personally relate to CA. We simply do not accept her evidence of ignorance or naivety in sharing that knowledge.
We consider that the respondent set about deliberately misleading the Board and AHPRA by distorting the timing and the nature of her relationship with CA so as to make it appear that nothing had occurred during the treatment period and that a sexual relationship did not occur until weeks after the treatment period had ended.
We do not accept the respondent's stated reasons for the delay in notifying the Board of her conduct. We consider that the extraordinary delay is corroborative of her intent to mislead. She had little choice in notifying as mandatory notifications would have been required by SAPOL and the respondent's work peers once her and CA's relationship became public knowledge in any event. There was simply no reason for the respondent and CA to remain clandestine about their relationship after 20 July 2019 to protect his contact with his children as the respondent stated in her evidence given by that time, according to the email correspondence, their respective spouses were already aware by then.
If we are wrong about the respondent's conscious or deliberate intentions to mislead the Board and the Regulator, then at the very least, the evidence supports her being reckless as she ought to have known that her statements were not correct. We find it incredible that she would not have remembered the contents of the emails given:

So there was a boy sitting quietly in a chair one day. The chair was in a waiting room and he could have been reading the magazines but instead, he was looking at a goldfish purposely bobbing around his little aquarium as though the next lap would finally reveal something different. The boy had a big heart that once brimmed with passion, belief and happiness and it beat with the frenzied happiness of a jazz band in full swing however these days, it beat a little quieter. As he sat, eyeballing the goldfish, movement caught his eye and his gaze moved from the fish to a girl who walked briskly to an office. She was beautiful and elegant and although she was clearly busy, her face had a brightness and light that caused his heart to find a little tune. Time slowed as she walked out of his line of sight into an office. "What was that" said the boy, "I hear music". He smiled and he knew he wanted to see this girl again. She called him into her office and her smile caused the music to grow louder. He could feel it in his chest and he knew she was the cause of it. He knew he needed more of it. Over time, the pair got to know each other and each time he was with her, the music grew more intense until he recognised the music. It was the jazz music and it seemed to be building up and building up. Then one day, the perfect moment fortuitously arrived. He had felt it already but the girl admitted there was music in her heart too and it played for him. They stood together and after a moment's hesitation, the two put their hands gently on one another and allowed their lips to touch. They trembled a little and music filled their hearts and raced through their bodies. Their music intertwined and was in perfect symphony. Their heart, their minds, their wants and their desires, their needs and passions all played together to create a soundtrack of a love for each other. To end such beautiful music would be a tragedy and they both knew it and they decided to do whatever it takes to keep the music alive. As the story continues to unfold, the music keeps growing louder. When they are apart, their hearts are filled with music for one another. When they are together, the music is so beautiful that even those with the hardest of hearts would still find a tear in their eye and they would know something special was being heard. > > Love you Sam [smiley face emoji]

In concluding, we wish to make the following further comments:
1. For ease of reference, during the course of considering the Grounds of complaint, we have restricted our discussion only to those parts of the evidence relevant to each specific Ground. However, in coming to our decisions regarding each Ground, we have taken into account the totality of the evidence.
2. We did not find Dr Angelakis to be a satisfactory witness. Throughout her evidence, she was on crucial issues vague, evasive, projecting (deflecting initiative for the relationship on CA) and at times, seemingly insight less as to her conduct at the relevant times. She displayed a tendency to minimise her conduct and to defer to the benefit of hindsight when the gravity and consequences of that conduct would have been patently obvious to any reasonable, ethical practitioner of any standing, let alone a psychologist specifically trained in trauma management and entrusted with the care of a vulnerable client, including CA (who presented with multiple co-morbidities) at the time of treatment. Overall, Dr Angelakis was neither a credible nor reliable historian of the facts and our findings reflect so accordingly.
3. We place little to no weight on the opinions expressed by Dr Lennings regarding his assessment of the nature or characterisation of the email correspondence between the respondent and CA during the period from 8-19 July 2019, his assessment of her level of skill and experience and his assessment of Dr Angelakis' state of mind at the time of her self-notification and first interview with AHPRA for the reasons previously stated. We found Dr Warren to be a more impressive expert witness notwithstanding the fact that she did not have the benefit of personally interviewing the respondent.
4. We must make it plain that whilst we have made adverse findings against the respondent for not calling CA as a witness during these proceedings, we do not make any adverse findings about him personally. We cannot do so for two reasons. Firstly, we have not heard his evidence nor had the opportunity to assess his demeanour, credit or reliability as a witness. Secondly, these proceedings which are disciplinary in nature, do not concern CA and his professional conduct is not in question here.
This matter will now be listed for directions with a view to setting it down for a sanction hearing for the Tribunal to consider what Orders ought to be made under ss 196(2)-(4) of the National Law on the basis of our findings.
The question of costs (under s 195 of the National Law), will be reserved until the further sanction hearing has been conducted and concluded.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (255 paragraphs)

Psychology Board of Australia v Angelakis [2024] SACAT 24 (9 April 2024)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)