HPDT Decisions

The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) hears and determines disciplinary proceedings brought against health practitioners and comprises of a chairperson, two deputy chairpersons and a panel of laypersons and health practitioners. The HPDT was created by Section 84 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.

Registered practitioners who have been involved in disciplinary proceedings are listed below; with links provided to the decision in the disciplinary proceedings from the HPDT. 

If a practitioner has court ordered name suppression, they are therefore not named below but referred to as named suppressed.

Professional Misconduct

Practitioner

Scope

Charge description

Decision date

HPDT decision and additional orders

DAVISON, Sean

MLS

1: Mr Davison's three murder charges in South Africa separately or cumulatively reflect adversely on his fitness to practise as a medical laboratory scientist under section 100(1)(c) of the HPCA Act.

2: Mr Davison's failure to notify the Council of his involvement in two of the three murders and his three murder convictions, amounts to professional misconduct, being conduct that has or is likely to bring discredit on the medical sciences profession under section100(1)(b) of the HPCA Act.

27 November 20

Finding:

The crimes for which Mr Davison has been convicted are extremely serious and carried a discretionary minimum penalty of life imprisonment. All three murders were pre-meditated and Mr Davison knew on each occasion that he was acting unlawfully. His conduct was repeated on three separate occasions over several years and followed a criminal conviction for similar conduct in NewZealand.

At least one of the murders (Mr Varian) involved Mr Davison utilising his professional skills andknowledge.

Mr Davison is not a qualified medical doctor. Even if assisted dying had been legal or decriminalised in South Africa at the relevant time, he performed procedures for which he was not qualified. This put these men at an increased risk ofharm.

Mr Davison continues to refuse to apologise for his involvement in the three murders. As recorded in his counsel’s written submissions, “Mr Davison] does not apologise for his role in those deaths given his involvement was based on a compassionate desire to help a fellow human being end their suffering in a dignified way”. 

The aggravating factors in relation to Charge 2 are that Mr Davison misled the Council prior to his registration and then failed to correct the position or provide obviously relevant information to the Council over a period of more than a year.

Penalty

The Tribunal finds the two disciplinary Charges established under s100(1)(b) and s100(1)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal also makes the following penalty orders under s101 and s102 of the Act, in respect of the practitioner, Mr Sean Davison:

The practitioner is censured to mark the disapproval of the Tribunal;

The practitioner’s registration is cancelled effective as at the date of this decision, subject to any rights of appeal that may be exercised; and

The practitioner is to pay a 25% contribution to the costs of both the  PCC and Tribunal, being a payment by the practitioner of $5,604 to the PCC and $2,835 to the Tribunal.

HPDT Decision

Ms A

MLT

Convicted of two criminal charges of offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and sentenced by the District Court to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months.

2016

Finding

The Tribunal found that the acts by the Medical Laboratory Technician were of the highest order of misbehaviour which reflects adversely on her fitness to practise.  The Tribunal noted that significant trust is placed by people in a health practitioner that they will be properly and comprehensively cared for.  The trust the health practitioner to do what is right for them and follow the advice given to them.  That means the health practitioner must show self-restraint in their own activities and lives and particularly how they deal with other people and with drugs to which they have access.  That is emphasised even more so in respect of vulnerable youth.

Penalty

The Tribunal cancelled the registration of the Medical Laboratory Technician, censured her and ordered her to pay $6,000 towards the costs of prosecution and hearing of the charge.

The Medical Laboratory Technician was granted permanent name suppression so as not to compromise the suppression order of the District Court.

The Tribunal directed publication of its decision and a summary.

HPDT decision

 

LAWSON, K

AT

Misappropriation of drugs
Falsification of documents
Theft

2014

Practitioner declined permanent name suppression. 

Staff members of hospital granted permanent suppression of name and identifying details.  

Hospital declined name suppression. 

The Tribunal ordered that the Anaesthetic Technician’s registration be cancelled and ordered her to pay $6,600 towards the costs of and incidental to the investigation, prosecution and hearing of the Charge.  The Tribunal imposed a censure and declined to grant an application from the Anaesthetic Technician for permanent name suppression

 HPDT decision

 

LAVERTY, C G

MLS

Practising without a current practising certificate

2014

The Tribunal considered there were a number of aggravating factors when the facts of this case were compared to other cases where a practitioner has practised without a practising certificate. 

The Tribunal ordered that the, Medical Laboratory Scientist:

• be censured;
• be deregistered ; and
• pay costs of $21,027.20.

 HPDT decision

 

Ms R (name suppressed)

MLS

Practising without a current practising certificate

2014

Respondent and Laboratory granted interim suppression of name and identifying features.  HPDT decision

 Respondent and laboratory granted permanent suppression of name and identifying features.  HPDT decision

 The Tribunal considered there were a number of mitigating factors as follows:

  • she admitted her offending, apologised and took immediate steps to remedy the situation;
  • her offending did not involve any deception or deliberate action;
  • it was her first offence;
  • she was otherwise regarded as competent;
  • the offending did not cause any risk to public safety; and
  • the practitioner was unlikely to reoffend.
  • The Tribunal ordered that Ms R:

• be censured;
• pay a fine of $1000; and
• pay costs of $5000.

 HPDT decision