This case involved a senior doctor who reported to Perth Children’s Hospital in early 2024 that he may have unintentionally caused injury to his infant son while attempting to relieve constipation. The child was found to have bruising and fractures. The doctor was charged with aggravated assault but the charge was later dropped after police concluded there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Despite this, the Medical Board suspended the doctor’s registration, citing the public interest. The doctor challenged the suspension in the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) and was successful. While SAT agreed that some form of immediate action was appropriate, it found that suspension went too far. Instead, it imposed conditions on the doctor’s registration, including supervision, restrictions on practice location and hours, and a ban on treating children under 16.
The Board appealed, arguing the SAT gave too much weight to character evidence and misunderstood the public interest – particularly the need to maintain public confidence in the medical profession as a whole.
The Court of Appeal disagreed.
It found no error of law in SAT’s reasoning and refused leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal confirmed that:
- Immediate action is about protecting the public, not punishing practitioners.
- Public confidence under s 3A(1)(b) of the National Law refers to the safety of services provided by health practitioners, not just preserving the profession’s reputation in the abstract.
- The SAT properly considered the balance between competing public interests, including fairness to the doctor, the lack of ongoing risk, and the fact that conditions had been working effectively for eight months without incident.
The Court of Appeal also noted that disciplinary proceedings, not further litigation over interim measures, are the appropriate place to deal with any remaining concerns about the doctor’s conduct.
Why this matters:
This decision is a reminder that not every serious allegation justifies suspension, especially where the facts are unclear, risk is manageable, and the practitioner has an otherwise unblemished record.
For practitioners, it highlights the importance of context, insight and transparency in responding to investigations.
For regulators, it reinforces the need to act proportionately and without delay, particularly when the charge underlying a suspension is withdrawn or does not proceed.
MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA -v- GLP [2025] WASCA 87
