Psychology Board of Australia v McArthur [2026] QCAT 135

[3] The allegations that form part of the referral relate to the Respondent's conduct between December 2020 and January 2022.

[4] The Respondent was, at the time of the alleged conduct, a registered psychologist.

[5] The Respondent first obtained registration as a psychologist on or around 29 June 1995.

[6] From 1 July 2010 until 28 June 2022, the Respondent held registration with the Board.

[7] Between 5 November 2010 and 25 June 2021, the Respondent was employed as a psychologist by Impact Health. Additionally, for a period of approximately three weeks in or about August or September 2021, the Respondent was employed by Mind on Health.

[8] On 10 January 2022, the Office of the Health Ombudsman ('OHO') received a notification concerning the Respondent. The notification was subsequently referred to the Australia Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('AHPRA'). A further two notifications were made to the OHO on 19 January 2022 and 24 January 2022, which were also referred to AHPRA.

[9] On 8 February 2022, the Board proposed to take immediate action to suspend the Respondent, with a response sought as to the proposed suspension from the Respondent.

[10] On 15 February 2022, the Respondent offered an undertaking not to practice, which was accepted by the Board on 16 February 2022.

[11] On 17 June 2022, the Respondent wrote to the Board indicating her desire to surrender her registration. This was accepted by the Board on 28 June 2022. The Respondent has not been registered as a psychologist since 28 June 2022.

[12] On 2 July 2025, a Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts, findings and determinations ('SOADF') was filed. At the time of filing the SOADF, the Respondent denied that the alleged conduct amounted to professional misconduct, as contended by the Board.

[13] On 16 September 2025, the Board filed their written submissions, which included a number of cases for the Tribunal to consider in respect of characterisation of the conduct and the appropriate sanction.

[14] On 17 October 2025, the Respondent filed written submissions. In those written submissions the Respondent indicated that she admitted the conduct outlined in grounds 1, 3, and 4 (noting the Board also did not press the allegations in respect of ground 2). Further, in her submissions the Respondent stated at [4]:

While I have previously indicated that I wished for a finding of unprofessional conduct, as opposed to professional misconduct, on further reflection and review of the previous decisions in the area, I agree that a finding of professional misconduct is appropriate.

[15] Additionally, the Respondent indicated in her written submissions that she agreed with the sanction sought by the Board.

[16] In such circumstances, pursuant to s 32 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal considers it appropriate for the matter to be dealt with on the papers.

[17] At material times to the allegations, the Respondent was required to practice as a psychologist in accordance with the following codes, standards and guidelines.

(a) Australian Psychological Society ('APS') Code of Ethics ('Code') which was adopted by the Applicant in 2010;

(b) APS Ethical Guidelines for managing professional boundaries and multiple relationships ('Ethical Guidelines');

(c) Professional Indemnity Insurance arrangements registration standard ('PII Registration Standard') published on 1 December 2019;

(d) AHPRA's position statement entitled 'No place for sexism, sexual harassment or violence in healthcare' published on 30 June 2021; and

(e) The Applicant's guidelines entitled 'Social Media: How to meet your obligations under the National Law' published in November 2019 ('Social Media Guideline').

[18] The following Standards of the Code are relevant to the Respondent's admitted conduct:

(a) Standard A.2.1 which provides that in the course of their conduct, psychologists:

(i) communicate respect for other people through their actions and language; and

(ii) do not denigrate the character of people by engaging in conduct that demeans them as persons, or defames or harasses them.

(b) Standard A.5.2 which provides that psychologists disclose confidential information obtained in the course of their provision of psychological services only under any one or more of the following circumstances:

(i) with the consent of the relevant client or a person with legal authority to act on behalf of the client;

(ii) where there is legal obligation to do so;

(iii) if there is an immediate and specified risk of harm to an identifiable person or persons that can be averted only by disclosing information;

(iv) when consulting colleagues, or in the course of supervision or professional training, provided the psychologist;

1. conceals the identity of clients and associated parties involved; or
2. obtains the client's consent, and gives prior notice to the recipients of the information that they are required to preserve the client's privacy, and obtains an undertaking from the recipients of the information that they will preserve the client's privacy.

(c) Standard B.1.1 requires psychologists to bring and maintain appropriate skills and learning to their areas of professional practice.

(d) Standard B.1.2 - psychologists only provide psychological services within the boundaries of their professional competence. This includes, but is not restricted to:

(i) adhering to APS Code of Ethics (2007) and Ethical Guidelines; and

(ii) complying with the law of the jurisdiction in which they provide psychological services.

(e) Standard B.3 requires psychologists provide psychological services in a responsible manner. Having regard to the nature of the psychological services they are providing, psychologists:

(i) act with the care and skill expected of a competent psychologist; and

(ii) are aware of, and take steps to establish and maintain proper professional boundaries with clients and colleagues.

(f) Standard C.1.1 which requires psychologists to avoid engaging in disreputable conduct that reflects on their ability to practise as a psychologist.

(g) Standard C.4.1 which requires that psychologists do not exploit people with whom they have or had a professional relationship.

[19] In relation to former clients, 6.4 of the Ethical Guidelines provides:

Psychologists are responsible for carefully assessing the risks and benefits of any form of future relationship with a former client, and for ensuring that the former client will not be adversely affected. Prior to engaging in a social, financial, or business contact with a former client, psychologists consider;

• the extent to which they and the former client can establish an equitable relationship;
• whether the former client is dependent on the psychologist in any way;
• whether the former client may want to re-establish a professional relationship in the future;
• the nature of the past psychological service (e.g., counselling, supervision);
• the duration of the previous professional relationship;
• the potential for the new relationship to undermine the effectiveness of the past psychological service.

[20] The PII Registration Standard provides that:

When you practise as a psychologist or provisional psychologist in Australia, you must be covered by your own or third-party PII arrangements that meet this registration standard:

1. for all aspects of your practice
2. in all locations where you practise
3. whether you are working in the private, non-government and/or public sector, and
4. whether you are practising full-time, part-time, are self-employed, employed, or in an unpaid or volunteer capacity, or any combination of these factors.[1]

[21] The PII Registration Standard reminds psychologists of the declarations they will be asked to make when renewing their registration. It states:

At renewal of registration

You will be required to declare annually at renewal that:

• during the preceding period of registration you practised the profession in accordance with the requirements of this registration standard, and
• you will not practise the profession unless you have PII arrangements in place that meet this standard.

[22] The first allegation relates to a failure by the Respondent to maintain professional boundaries and a failure to communicate appropriately with patient GH, outside of a clinical settling, by means of Facebook and phone.

[23] The Respondent treated Patient GH on nine occasions between 2013 and 12 May 2021.

[24] After the Respondent ceased employment with Impact Health, she contacted patient GH regarding her continuity of care.

[25] In 2021, the Respondent posted on Facebook, in response to a post made by a member of Patient GH's family:

Is .... your daughter in law now,...? I didn't know she married your son? Is she still a moronic ignorant unemployment anti-vaxxing pensioner with kids to other dudes putting you and your grandson's life at risk?

[26] In addition to the post made by the Respondent on Facebook, the Respondent sent ten messages to Patient GH using Facebook Messenger. The messages included the following:

'Unfortunately this is 3 weeks old. In scientific terms this is ANCIENT HISTORY. The borders open in 6 days... Does ... want to get minor symptoms from a vaxx or get very ill from Delta give it to ... and both probably die?'

'I think vaccinations will be a moot point anyway. Joe Biden clearly has dementia and the planet is dying quickly because humans (breeders) have destroyed it.'

'Great news. I going to study for my PhD full time. So my title will be Dr. Kirsten McArthur thank you very much plus the graduation hat is too cool.'

'Hey ..., have ya got that retarded mother of your grand son to get vaxxed yet??? Anti vaxxers should be exterminated. This planet has no room for them ...'

'I hope you have a nice xmas ... Perhaps it is a good time to reflect on your life and try and understand why you had relationships with such freak nasty shows ... and why you didn't do more for your son who was so obviously sick for such a long time. You really need to take a more assertive role with ... sorry but she is an ignorant selfish idiot... take control... stop being such a door mat ... please?'

[This message was accompanied by a photograph of the stab wound and a photo from the movie 'The Exorcist'.]

'Okay sorry babes I give up. I got stabbed by my neighbour for real. She has paranoid schizophrenia and is an alcoholic prostitute. Well I do live in Surfers!!! I have been having terrible issues with her for 5 weeks. I think she is finally gone. Her unit stinks of cat piss. I took a photo of her and she doesn't look well...'

'Meet .... Delightful lady. Look's like the chick from Exorcist? Have you seen it?'

'Been to Surfers Paradise Police Station made a statement exhausted. Crazy lady Photos taken.'

'Nice to know you care... after ALL the help I gave you. Having my notes subpoenaed was NOT fun. You know I just speak the truth. I really hate bullshit. You have had some hideous maggots in your life and continue to do so ... you made your bed ... be assertive for once in your life, use a brain and stop being a victim all the time... It is not a good quality in you...'

'Get off Facebook GET OFF CENTRELINK and get a fucking life .... What a pathetic loser you are ...'

'Get a JOB DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS??? And don't' ever ask for my help EVER again ... you are just too stupid and we were NEVER friends doll... good luck...'

'I am reporting you to Centrelink. YOU ARE A FUCKING FAKE. You clearly CAN work AND DON'T and I find that repulsive. Get a life and GET A JOB AS A CLEANER LOSER and stop wasting my taxes!!! You really are a retard... I have known that since the first time I met you...'

'You are in big trouble. CENTRELINK FRAUD IS A JAILABLE OFFENCE. HOW DUMB ARE YOU'

'Your beloved FB was your downfall. I have recorded ALL your activity to show just what a busy bee you can actually be so you CAN clean toilets dolebludger oh well TOO LATE YOU WILL LOSE EVERYTHING.'

'I told you I am a student now and will be a research scientist. Your daughter is more retarded than u too much ICE EH?'

'Got heaps of money and a rich boyfriend don't need to work ever again sucked lazy winging bitch.'

[27] The Respondent accepts that her Facebook post and the messages sent on Facebook Messenger to Patient GH were inconsistent with the Code.

[28] In its submissions filed 16 September 2025 the Board indicated it no longer sought findings in relation to allegation 2 of the referral.

[29] The Respondent practised without Public Indemnity Insurance ('PII') between 11 December 2020 and 25 June 2021.

[30] The Respondent received notices from Bizcover informing her that her PII was due to expire on four separate occasions, prior to the lapsing of the insurance, namely:

(a) 22 October 2020;

(b) 11 November 2020;

(c) 27 November 2020;

(d) 7 December 2020.

[31] Further, on 11 December 2020 (the date the PII lapsed), the Respondent received further notification from Bizcover.

[32] On 8 July 2021, the Respondent purchased PII for the period 8 July 2021 to 8 July 2022.

[33] The Respondent's failure to maintain PII between 11 December 2020 and 25 June 2021 was contrary to the requirements imposed on her by the Code, PII Registration Standard and section 129 of the National Law.

[34] When the Respondent renewed her registration on 28 November 2021, she made a false and misleading declaration, when she answered "yes" to the following questions:

(a) Do you commit to meet the Board's registration standard for professional indemnity insurance arrangements?

(b) In the previous registration period, did you meet the Board's registration standard for professional indemnity insurance?

[35] The Respondent recklessly made those declarations that were false and misleading.

[36] The orders that may be made when a matter is referred to the Tribunal by a National Board are prescribed in section 196 of the National Law.

[37] The parties agree that each of the allegations should be characterised as professional misconduct.

[38] Pursuant to section 5 of the National Law 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.

[39] In terms of the characterisation of the conduct, in determining whether it is conduct inconsistent with the Respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration, the determination is to be made at the time of the conduct.[2]

[40] Further, for a finding of professional misconduct falling within paragraph (c) of the definition, the Tribunal is required to determine whether the conduct itself is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration. The assessment is not concerned with the personal characteristics of the practitioner.

[41] As to determining the characterisation of the conduct of the Respondent, it is submitted by the Board that the Tribunal would have regard to the following:

(a) at the time of the conduct, the Respondent was a senior psychologist with over 25 years' experience;

(b) GH was a patient of the Respondent for eight (8) years prior to the cessation of the Respondent's employment with Impact Health. As a consequence of the prolonged relationship with the patient, the Respondent was aware of matters intimately personal to GH and her family;

(c) the treatment relationship did not end because GH no longer required psychological care and support. It ended because the Respondent's employment with Impact Health came to an end. Further, the Respondent did not intend for the treating relationship to end. She initially contacted GH because she sought to continue offering her psychological care through her new workplace;

(d) the power imbalance between the Respondent and GH;

(e) the potential and actual harm to GH resulting from the Respondent's Facebook post and messages, in circumstances where the Respondent misused her knowledge of GH and published information that had the potential to harm, not just GH, but her son, his wife and their child. The comment posted on Facebook could be read by any number of persons connected with the Facebook account holder;

(f) the conduct in respect of allegation one, was not an isolated incident, but rather involved the sending of messages on 10 occasions over a number of weeks, in circumstances where it was GH's evidence that it only ceased when she blocked the Respondent on Facebook;

(g) the Respondent failed to maintain PII over a not insignificant period of 7 months between December 2020 and July 2021. PII is designed to protect the public and exists to ensure that patients have proper recourse in the event of loss or damage occasioned by a practitioner's malpractice;

(h) not only did the Respondent fail to hold PII for a period of some seven months, but she also then misled AHPRA by indicating she did hold it at a time she did not.

[42] Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the Respondent's conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct and satisfies subsections (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law, as to professional misconduct.

[43] The parties also agree as to the appropriate sanction that should be imposed in respect of the Respondent's conduct, namely:

(a) Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

(b) Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.

(c) Pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 6 months from the date of this order.

(d) There be no order as to costs.

[44] The Tribunal's disciplinary jurisdiction is exercised for the paramount purpose of protecting the health and safety of the public[3] and the protection of the reputation of the profession in the public mind.

[45] Where the parties have agreed on the appropriate sanction, whilst the Tribunal retains a discretion to impose a different sanction, it ought not readily depart from the parties' agreed position unless the Tribunal considers the agreed sanction inappropriate in the overall circumstances of the matter.[4]

[46] In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal must also undertake a risk assessment of the practitioner, and in doing so, the practitioner's level of insight is a relevant consideration.[5]

[47] In Medical Board of Australia v Singh[6] the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia provided a very helpful summary of the factors to be considered when determining sanction, namely:

1. Any need to protect the public against further conduct by the practitioner.
2. The need to protect the public through deterrence of other practitioners from similar conduct.
3. The need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession by reinforcing high professional standards and denouncing transgressions and thereby articulating the high standard expected of the profession, such that, even where there may be no need to deter a practitioner from repeating the conduct, the conduct is of such a nature that the Tribunal should give an emphatic indication of its disapproval.
4. In the case of conduct involving misleading conduct, including dishonesty, whether the public and fellow practitioners can place reliance on the word of the practitioner.
5. Whether the practitioner has breached any:

1. Act;
2. Regulations;
3. Guidelines or Code of Conduct, issued by the relevant professional body; and
4. whether the practitioner has done so knowingly.

1. Whether the practitioner's conduct demonstrated incompetence, and if so, to what level.
2. Whether or not the incident was isolated such that the Tribunal can be satisfied of his or her worthiness or reliability for the future.
3. The practitioner's disciplinary history.
4. Whether or not the practitioner understands the error of his ways, including an assessment of any remorse and insight (or a lack thereof) shown by the practitioner, since a practitioner who fails to understand the significance and consequences of misconduct is a risk to the community.
5. The desirability of making available to the public any special skills possessed by the practitioner.
6. The practitioner's personal circumstances at the time of the conduct and at the time of imposing the sanction. However, the weight given to personal circumstances cannot override the fundamental obligation of the Tribunal to provide appropriate protection of the public interest in the honesty and integrity of ... practitioners and in the maintenance of proper standards of ... practice.
7. The Tribunal may consider any other matters relevant to the practitioner's fitness to practice and other matters which may be regarded as aggravating the conduct or mitigating its seriousness. In general, mitigating factors such as no previous misconduct or service to the profession are considerably less significant than in the criminal process because the jurisdiction is protective not punitive.

[48] Having decided that the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, the Tribunal has a wide discretion to impose sanctions ranging from a caution or a reprimand of the practitioner to cancellation of registration.[7]

[49] The gravity of professional misconduct is not to be measured by reference to the worst cases, but by the extent to which it departs from the proper standards.[8] The Board, in their written submissions have usefully provided a number of cases to assist in determining the appropriate sanction. It is noted that each matter must turn on its own personal facts and circumstances, but such cases provide a useful 'yardstick.'

[50] In the matter of The Health Ombudsman v Masamba,[9] then Deputy President, Judge Sheridan stated:

Any form of social contact with a patient will not be tolerated. It is inconsistent with the importance of having a system of independent health care professionals, particularly in the mental health sphere given the power imbalance and the vulnerability of patients.

[51] In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal has had regard to the following factors, in addition to the matters that are already outlined above at paragraph [41]:

(a) the affidavit of patient GH's daughter describes some of the ongoing impacts on her mother, due to the Respondent's conduct, to include:

(i) GH requiring ongoing psychological support but feeling too scared to start again with another psychologist, having lost trust in the profession of psychology;

(ii) GH developing agoraphobia and not leaving the house; and

(iii) GH requiring full-time care from her daughter.

(b) the messages sent by the Respondent were belittling and harassing in nature. The Respondent showed a complete disregard for the mental health of her patient and an inability to retain professional boundaries;

(c) although the Respondent did not accept the characterisation of her conduct until after receiving the written submissions of the Board, she has in many respects cooperated with the disciplinary process, including agreeing to the significant factual matters as to each allegation pressed by the Board;

(d) the Respondent has cooperated from an early stage, particularly in respect of the factual findings, enabling the matter to proceed without the need for GH or her family members to give evidence;

(e) in 2007, the Respondent informed the Psychologists Board of Queensland ('former board') that she suffers from Bipolar Disorder. As a result, the former board arranged an independent psychiatric assessment of the Respondent, that resulted in a recommendation that the Respondent practice under supervision. The Respondent, at that time, provided an undertaking to the former Board that she would do so;

(f) in 2015, the Respondent was also subject to disciplinary proceedings because of a failure to keep the clinical notes required and for breaching an undertaking to practice under supervision. The Tribunal was satisfied the Respondent's breach of the undertaking was a misunderstanding of the undertaking, rather than a wilful breach. The Respondent was found to have behaved in a way that constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct and was reprimanded;

(g) the Respondent's notification history also records that complaints were made about inappropriate communications by the Respondent on two other occasions. No action was taken in respect of those notifications;

(h) at the time of the conduct, there were significant personal circumstances affecting the Respondent, that are relevant, including:

(i) the loss of her mother, in tragic circumstances in February 2021;

(ii) her employment ceasing during 2021;

(iii) a significant deterioration in the Respondent's mental health in or about August 2021, when she was referred back to her psychiatrist who had treated her over the past 19 years;

(iv) treatment as an inpatient for her mental health from in or about late 2022;

(v) both Dr Marshall, the Respondent's former treating psychiatrist, and Dr Roy, the Respondent's current treating psychiatrist, opine as to her significant psychiatric presentation in 2021 and 2022; and

(vi) although the Respondent's significant mental health difficulties at the time of the allegations is not an excuse for her behaviour, it is accepted by the Tribunal that it provides some explanation for her conduct;

(i) when the Respondent became aware of the notification and the Board's proposal to suspend her registration, the Respondent immediately undertook to cease practice and voluntarily relinquished her registration in June 2022;

(j) the Respondent has not practised as a psychologist since the end of 2021; and

(k) it is accepted by the Board that the Respondent's failure to maintain PII and her provision of false and misleading declarations was reckless and not intentional conduct.

[52] It is the Board's submission that the totality of the Respondent's conduct justifies an order disqualifying the Respondent from applying for registration for a period of six (6) months from the date of the order. Such an order, it is submitted by the Board, fulfils the objective of protecting the public and maintaining public confidence in the profession by deterring other practitioners from similar conduct, denouncing transgressions and articulating the standards expected of an experienced psychologist. The Tribunal accepts those submissions.

[53] Having regard to the Respondent's conduct as a whole, and taking into account the relevant considerations outlined above, together with the authorities to which the Tribunal has been referred by the Board, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sanctions proposed by the Board (and accepted by the Respondent) are appropriate.

[54] In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has also given weight to the Respondent's mental health difficulties and her broader personal circumstances.

[55] The Tribunal thanks the assessors for their thoughtful engagement and assistance.

(a) Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

(b) Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.

(c) Pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 6 months from the date of this order.

(d) There be no order as to costs.

[1] Psychology Board of Australia, Registration Standard: Professional Indemnity Insurance Arrangements, effective 1 December 2019.

[2] Medical Board of Australia v Arulanandarajah (Review and Regulation) [2021] VCAT 85.

[4] Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376 at [91]- [93].

[5] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391 at [71] citing Medical Board of Australia v Bromeley [2018] QCAT 163 at [142].

[6] [2017] WASAT 33 [23]-(29].

[7] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2023] QCA 96 [45].

[8] Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield [1997] NSWSC 297; (1997) 41 NSWLR 630, 638.

[9] [2019] QCAT 227 [45].