ROBERTS V A PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE NURSING COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV-2012-404-003916

ROBERTS V A PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE NURSING COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV-2012-404-003916

The Court held that penalty decisions of the Tribunal involve the exercise of discretion so the May v May standard governs appellate interference; the Tribunal erred by failing to adequately explain why the maximum three year suspension was necessary (insufficient consideration of rehabilitation and parity with comparable cases); the appeal was allowed and the suspension reduced to 18 months from 15 May 2012; the Tribunal's s101(1)(c) order was quashed and substituted with a requirement that the practitioner, within six months of resuming practice in New Zealand, complete courses on ethics and professional boundaries to the satisfaction of the Nursing Council; the PCC cross‑appeal for...

Citation
openlaw-984d3a9f_49a1_4521_81d2_df9530bebf17.pdf
Parties
Appellant (registered Nurse): Michael Roberts; Respondent (professional Conduct Committee): A Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (disciplinary Penalty) / High Court Rehearing and Reserved Judgment (judgment Delivered 12 December 2012)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Tribunal's three year suspension quashed and substituted with an 18 month suspension commencing 15 May 2012; Tribunal s101(1)(c) order quashed and replaced; cross‑appeal dismissed; other Tribunal orders to remain in force.
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Penalty Appeal, Rehearing, Exercise of Discretion, Rehabilitation, Professional Boundaries
Health Law Administrative Law Professional Disciplinary Law Appeal Law Professional Misconduct Penalty Appeal Rehearing Exercise of Discretion +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Roberts

Appellant (registered Nurse)

A Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand

Respondent (professional Conduct Committee)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (disciplinary Penalty) / High Court Rehearing and Reserved Judgment (judgment Delivered 12 December 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What appellate test applies to penalty appeals from the HPDT (Austin, Nichols v May v May)?
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in imposing the maximum three year suspension for a nurse who formed a sexual relationship with a patient and whether relevant penalty factors were adequately considered (rehabilitation, parity, public protection, proportionality).

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that penalty decisions of the Tribunal involve the exercise of discretion so the May v May standard governs appellate interference; the Tribunal erred by failing to adequately explain why the maximum three year suspension was necessary (insufficient consideration of rehabilitation and parity with comparable cases); the appeal was allowed and the suspension reduced to 18 months from 15 May 2012; the Tribunal's s101(1)(c) order was quashed and substituted with a requirement that the practitioner, within six months of resuming practice in New Zealand, complete courses on ethics and professional boundaries to the satisfaction of the Nursing Council; the PCC cross‑appeal for...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Tribunal's three year suspension quashed and substituted with an 18 month suspension commencing 15 May 2012; Tribunal s101(1)(c) order quashed and replaced; cross‑appeal dismissed; other Tribunal orders to remain in force.

Orders

  • Suspend Michael Roberts' registration as a nurse for 18 months from 15 May 2012
  • Quash the Tribunal's s101(1)(c) order and instead order that, within six months of resuming practice in New Zealand, Michael Roberts complete to the satisfaction of the Nursing Council any courses on ethics and professional boundaries directed by the Council