Psychology Board of Australia v Turnbull [2025] QCAT 450

(a) there was a very significant inherent power imbalance; and

(b) any significant harm was suffered by GB.

• [11] In my view, the nine months imposed in that case is beyond what might be imposed in this.
• [12] In Garcia, a registered psychologist commenced an inappropriate non-professional relationship and sexual relationship with a former client in breach of appropriate professional standards. The psychologist provided services to the patient over a period of about eighteen months from September 2010 to March 2012.[13] They developed a friendship from about February 2012.[14] In March 2012, the psychologist provided the patient with information about other psychologists to whom he was referred.[15] In April 2012, the relationship between the psychologist and the patient became a romantic one and they commenced living together from August 2012.[16]
• [13] In my view, that case too might be considered a little more serious than this because of the significant duration of the therapeutic relationship - eighteen months in all - compared to the relatively brief nature of this therapeutic relationship and because of the proximity of time between the development of the friendship and indeed the romantic relationship and the cessation of the professional relationship. Unfortunately, I do not know the nature of the client's psychological distress that necessitated the provision of psychological services in that case, but in my view, the fact that treatment continued for a period of about eighteen months indicates that it may have been significant. In that case, suspension was for a period of six months.
• [14] The circumstances of this case - and bearing in mind the ongoing supervisory and treatment relationship the psychologist had with her senior psychologist and the fact of her ongoing medical issues and consequent economic concerns - it is my view that rather than impose a suspension for a period of nine months, as had been agreed, it is appropriate to impose a suspension period of about four and a half months. I am conscious of the decision of Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376, but in my view, the proposed suspension for a period of nine months is beyond what might reasonably be imposed in the circumstances of this case. I am also conscious in coming to that conclusion that the respondent was entirely self-represented, and I infer from all of the communications before me that there might not have been a great debate amongst the parties prior to the respondent agreeing to those nine months.

• [15] In the circumstances, the Tribunal makes the following findings and orders:
  1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
  2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.
  3. Pursuant to s 196(2)(d) of the National Law, the respondent's registration is suspended for a period of four and a half months from the date of the Tribunal's order.

[1] Hearing Brief, filed in the Tribunal 20 December 2024, 78 ('HB').

[7] Ibid 150; see also Letter from psychologist, dated 7 July 2023, contained in the HB (n 1) 152.

[8] Filed in the Tribunal 30 August 2024.

[10] Psychology Board of Australia v IVX [2016] VCAT 35 [157]-[158].

[13] Psychology Board of Australia v Garcia [2015] VCAT 128 ('Garcia') [5].