Case Summary | Nurse disqualified from practice for 10 years for sexually inappropriate conduct in respect of two psychiatric inpatients

by | Jun 2, 2022 | Health Blog

A Tribunal has found two allegations made by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia against an enrolled nurse working at a hospital during March and August 2015 proven. Guilty of professional misconduct, Mr Laycock was found to have breached sexual boundaries with two psychiatric inpatients both while and after he was responsible for their clinical care.

Background

In July 2021, the Tribunal published its reasons in respect of Mr Laycock’s conduct, an enrolled nurse, in respect of Patients A and B (the Patients). Mr Laycock was found to have breached the boundaries that ordinarily exist between nurse and patient, including:

  • inappropriately communicating with the Patients both while they were inpatients at the hospital and after the Patients had been discharged;
  • arranging meet ups with the Patients outside of the hospital, including when they were inpatients;
  • kissing the Patients, touching their breasts, and digitally penetrating them;
  • having the Patients touch him inappropriately, including on his crotch;
  • asking the Patients to perform oral sex on him – which they did within the hospital and at other locations; and
  • attempting to and/or engaging in sexual intercourse with the Patients.

The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (Board) sought a finding of professional misconduct as Mr Laycock’s conduct fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a nurse of an equivalent level of training experience. Further the Board submitted the seriousness of Mr Laycock’s conduct was wholly inconsistent with the concept of ‘fit and proper’ under the National Law. The conduct involved multiple breaches, was of a sexual nature and involved an abuse of his position, which was a clear breach of trust between a nurse and a patient. His conduct was demonstrative of a lack of understanding and appreciation of his role and obligations as a nurse caring for psychiatric patients.

Mr Laycock was self-represented at the final hearing, although he had been represented prior to then. He accepted he had acted inappropriately by communicating with the Patients but denied any inappropriate sexual conduct. He further submitted that his behaviour was possibly attributable to undiagnosed ADHD, however, was unable to support this assertion with any evidence despite being given time by the Tribunal to obtain and file any necessary documents. Mr Laycock indicated that his six and half year suspension had been sufficiently long such that he was remorseful and had gained insight and could assure the Tribunal there would be no repeat occurrence. However, the Tribunal were not persuaded, as he later made submissions attempting to shift the burden of responsibility and accountability from himself to the Patients which the Tribunal rejected in its entirety.

Outcome

In light of what the Tribunal labelled “appalling” conduct, Mr Laycock’s lack of insight, and unfitness to practice now or for the foreseeable future, Mr Laycock was reprimanded, his registration was cancelled, and he was disqualified for 10 years from re-registration. Additionally, the Tribunal prohibited Mr Laycock from working in health services of any kind. Further, the Tribunal took the unusual step of not allowing some of Mr Laycock’s time spent suspended to act as ‘time served’ to reduce the 10-year disqualification period. In their reasons the Tribunal stated that Mr Laycock’s suspension had not had the desired mitigating effects and although Mr Laycock believed his admissions were ‘very insightful’, his submissions and the way he engaged with disciplinary proceedings revealed otherwise.

Takeaway

This case illustrates how each matter is to be decided on its particular facts. Whilst sexual misconduct involving health practitioners will always be considered serious misconduct, in circumstances where such conduct involves the exploitation of vulnerable patients. In such cases it is not unusual for more extensive sanctions to be imposed. It also demonstrates the importance placed on matters of a practitioner’s remorse and insight into their conduct at Tribunals.

To read the full decision in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Laycock (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 287 click here.

Scarlette De Lavaine

Scarlette De Lavaine