Psychology Board of Australia v Macleod [2026] QCAT 52

[2] On the 21 November 2022 an email was received by Ahpra; the appropriate regulatory body for a registered psychologist. The email came from the respondent's email address and attached a document that purported to be a medical certificate from her general practitioner. However, it was subsequently ascertained after an approach to the medical practitioner that he had not produced that certificate which the respondent had then forwarded.

[3] The respondent has on a number of occasions spoken about the fact that she was not practicing as a psychologist at the time of these allegations but at the time she was a provisionally registered psychologist since 20 April 2022 and that provisional registration lapsed on 20 April 2025. The reason the first certificate was sent was that on 8 September 2022 an officer of the Health Ombudsman received a notification which raised concerns about the respondent and her health in regards to her use of drugs.

[4] After the notification, an investigator Mr Hemsley had a phone call with the respondent, and he told her about the notification. In response, the respondent admitted she had used suboxone in the past and that was because she had had a car accident approximately 5 years prior. The respondent said that she would contact her general practitioner (GP) for a certificate. On 2 November 2022 there was a request from Ahpra to the respondent for information setting out what information was required and in a follow up email later on that day, other points were raised that Ahpra wanted answered.

[5] On 16 November 2022 the respondent emailed Ahpra saying she needed a few more days to get a letter from her doctor. The, on the 21 November an email was received from her address with a document purporting to be a medical certificate from a Dr DS, the document is contained in the agreed bundle of documents. The text of that document was that:

"Shannon Macleod has been a patient of mine since 2018. Shannon had a car accident in late 2016. Shannon suffers from complex PTSD and was taking codeine after her car accident. In the past I have prescribed suboxone to Shannon. She has not been prescribed suboxone since February 2022. She continues to seek therapy for her PTSD and is doing well."

[6] The respondent admits that what is recorded as the author of that document was S Macleod, it was created on a particular date and was modified on that same date by S Macleod.

[7] After receiving that certificate Ahpra contacted the respondent and sought her to provide a new medical certificate presumably because the questions that had been raised had been answered insufficiently.

[8] On 9 September the respondent sent an email to Ahpra stating "perfect timing because I've made another appointment with my GP next week as I want him to write a better letter for me. He was way too distracted with an emergency that day."

[9] That passage in itself can only be seen as meaning to imply that there had been an original appointment, that the doctor at that original appointment had provided a letter, and that she had observed that when he wrote the letter he was distracted by an emergency.

[10] On 23 December the respondent provided to Ahpra a second medical certificate. This was sent in the same email chain as the first medical certificate and there is no issue about the second certificate except to say that it disclosed one thing that was not in the first certificate and that was opiate addiction and that he was still treating her with Buvidal a long acting buprenorphine for opiate dependency. Secondly, it contained no comment about her continuing to seek therapy for her PTSD and that she was doing well.

[11] On 27 January 2023 Ahpra notified the respondent that it was investigating whether she had provided a forged medical certificate. In response the respondent provided a written submission on 15 February 2023 in which she alleged she had been cyber-hacked and that she had nothing to gain from writing a fraudulent certificate.

[12] The two things the respondent did gain was that the diagnosis was not there and there was a positive response to her receiving therapy.

[13] The Tribunal is very comfortable with the finding that she did in fact create that first certificate and that she did so deliberate because it is just inconceivable that somebody would type out an email and send it without it being deliberate and that the first medical certificate was false and misleading and deliberately provided to Ahpra.

[14] The contravention on the 9 December 2022, which is where the respondent said that she had made another appointment with her doctor is false information provided to Aphra when the finding the Tribunal has just made makes it clear that there was no original appointment with the doctor, and he has said that, is followed by the final falsity which is that the certificate was created as a result of her being a victim of cyberstalking. The respondent has not produced any evidence of contact with the police at the relevant time about the cyberstalking and in any event, it is unacceptable to think that a third person would hack her computer to send a certificate which benefited her, to her regulatory body.

[15] Professional misconduct includes 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 and experience and more than one instance of unprofessional conduct which 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.[1] The code of ethics requires the respondent to act with integrity, indulge in reputable behaviour and cooperate with ethics investigations and proceedings.

[16] The findings the Tribunal has made constitute a large and considerable departure from the standard of conduct which should be expected. The Tribunal notes that it is up to the applicant to prove a finding of professional misconduct to the Briginshaw standard[2] which it has done so under s 5 of the national law paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition.

[17] The relevant principles have been set out in the applicant's submissions and the Tribunal will not address each of them but one of the matters that should be taken into account is insight and remorse. It is very difficult for the Tribunal to find any insight or remorse in the respondent's behaviour. There are two important issues here, one is general deterrence, that is, sending a signal to other members of the profession that adverse consequences will follow such conduct and therefore deter them from such conduct.

[18] It is also important for the Tribunal to consider the public confidence in the profession. Here, because the Tribunal is unable to really discern insight or remorse, specific deterrence, that is deterring the practitioner herself or the respondent herself from behaving in future in such a way, is important.

[19] There are some mitigating features. The existence of a psychiatric order on the part of the respondent to a disciplinary proceeding does not excuse the conduct but takes on the character of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, but it may nevertheless be taken into account in mitigation. The applicant accepts the respondent has sought psychiatry assistance in the past. But there is no evidence of any connection between those mental health problems and her actions engaging in the conduct the subject of these proceedings.

[20] The applicant has placed a number of cases before the Tribunal. No two cases are the same, but presenting cases like this does provide a guideline to the Tribunal so that it does not go outside the acceptable boundaries in relation to sanction. The Tribunal is of the view that those cases establish parameters in which the sought sanction falls.

[21] The Tribunal finds that the respondent deliberately provided false and misleading information to Ahpra and therefore engaged in professional misconduct.

1. The respondents conduct constitutes professional misconduct.
2. The respondent be reprimanded.
3. The respondent be disqualified for applying for registration for a period of 12 months.
4. On the substantive hearing there be no order as to costs.

[1] Health Practitioner Regulation (National Law) (Qld) s 5(a) and (b).

[2] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.