NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and BASTIN [2025] WASAT 125 (S)
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 1
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT : HEALTH PRACTITIONER NATIONAL LAW
(WESTERN AUSTRALIA)
CITATION : NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF
AUSTRALIA and BASTIN [2025] WASAT 125 (S)
MEMBER : DR M EVANS-BONNER, SENIOR MEMBER
MR R POVEY, MEMBER
DR B JONES, SESSIONAL MEMBER
HEARD : 17 FEBRUARY 2026
DELIVERED : 4 JUNE 2026
FILE NO/S : VR 30 of 2024
BETWEEN : NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF
AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
MICHELLE JEANNE ROSEMARY BASTIN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Vocational regulation - Health practitioner - Registered nurse - Practitioner found
to have engaged in professional misconduct - Practitioner found to have stolen
from clients in their home whilst a carer for their disabled children - Penalty -
Practitioner reprimanded, registration cancelled and may not apply to Tribunal for
reinstatement order for 12 months - Prohibition from providing health services for
12 months - Practitioner ordered to pay costs
-- 1 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 2
Legislation:
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA), s 6
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia), s 3A(1), s 5,
s 5(a), s 5(c), s 195, s 196(1)(b), s 196(1)(b)(iii), s 196(2), s 196(2)(a),
s196(2)(b), s 196(2)(c), s 196(2)(d), s 196(2)(e), s 196(4), s196(4)(aa),
s196(4)(b), s198A(1), s198E
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment
Act 2025 (Qld)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA), s 19
Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination 2024 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87, s 87(1), s 87(2)
Result:
Practitioner reprimanded
Practitioner's registration cancelled
Practitioner not to apply for reinstatement order for 12 months
Practitioner prohibited from providing health services for 12 months
Practitioner to pay a contribution to the Applicant's costs in the sum of $14,000
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : N/A
Respondent : N/A
Solicitors:
Applicant : Perth Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169
Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307
Health Care Complaints Commission v Scheggetman [2023] NSWCATOD 48
Health Ombudsman v Roza [2022] QCAT 420
-- 2 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 3
Medical Board of Australia and Pepulani [2021] WASAT 128
Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S)
Medical Board of Australia v Win (Review and Regulation) (Amended)
[2015] VCAT 1289
Medical Board of Western Australia and Bham [2006] WASAT 190
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Bastin [2025] WASAT 125
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Burwood [2023] WASAT 36 (S)
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Mehra [2022] VR 99
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v BCD (No 2) [2025] QCAT 8
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v BCD [2024] QCAT 485
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Sotingco [2018] VCAT 1615
Pharmacy Board of Australia and Hegde [2023] WASAT 109
Pharmacy Board of Australia and Teh [2025] WASAT 30
Psychology Board of Australia and Fawcett [2023] WASAT 86
Psychology Board of Australia v Cassar [2024] VCAT 450
Singh v Medical Board of Australia [2019] WASCA 51
-- 3 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 4
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Overview
1 On 5 November 2025, we handed down our Primary Reasons in
this matter.1
2 In our Primary Reasons we found that the Respondent, Ms Bastin,
engaged in 'professional misconduct' as defined in s 5(a) and s 5(c) of the
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia)
(National Law) when, between July 2019 and 22 October 2019, she stole
numerous items of clothing, shoes, toiletries, food and other household
items from Mr A and Mrs B's home whilst she was working in their home
as a carer for their two disabled children.
3 These reasons concern the penalty that should be imposed to give
effect to our finding of professional misconduct.
4 For the reasons we explain below, we have decided that Ms Bastin
should be reprimanded, that her registration should be cancelled and that
she is not to apply to the Tribunal for a reinstatement order for a period
of 12 months from the date of these orders. We have also decided that
she should be prohibited from providing any health services during the
disqualification period.
5 We have also found that Ms Bastin should pay the costs of the
Nursing and Midwifery Board (referred to as the Board or
the Applicant) in the sum of $14,000 within 28 days, or within such
other time agreed by the parties.
The proceeding
6 After we handed down our Primary Reasons, on 19 November
2025, we made orders programming the filing of submissions and
supporting evidence in relation to penalty and costs. Ms Bastin indicated
that she may not want to do so, and so the orders gave her the opportunity
to do so, or to provide written confirmation that she did not want to file
anything.
7 The Applicant filed submissions on 12 December 2025.2
1 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Bastin [2025] WASAT 125 (Primary Reasons).
These reasons should be read together with the Primary Reasons.
2 'Applicant's submissions on sanction and costs' dated 12 December 2025.
-- 4 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 5
8 On 12 January 2026, Ms Bastin filed written confirmation that she
did not want to reply or file any evidence relevant to penalty and costs.3
9 On 17 February 2026, we made orders giving the Respondent the
opportunity to file evidence about costs because their costs were only
stated in submissions and giving Ms Bastin the opportunity to respond.
10 On 25 February 2026, the Applicant's legal representative,
Mr de Bes, filed an affidavit dated 24 February 2026 with two annexures
(Costs Affidavit).
11 On 9 March 2026, Ms Bastin filed written confirmation that she did
not wish to respond to the Costs Affidavit or to submit any evidence.
The Applicable Law
National Law
12 Subsection 3A(1) of the National Law sets out the main guiding
principles of the national registration and accreditation scheme.
It provides that the protection of the public and public confidence in the
safety of services provided by registered health practitioners are
paramount.
13 Subsection 196(1)(b) of the National Law sets out the range of
decisions that a responsible Tribunal can make after hearing a matter
about a registered health practitioner, including making a finding that the
practitioner engaged in professional misconduct.4
14 This Tribunal is the responsible Tribunal in Western Australia for
the purposes of the National Law.5
15 Having made a finding under s 196(1)(b) of the National Law,
s 196(2) sets out the penalties which the Tribunal may decide to impose.
The Tribunal can impose one or more of those penalties.
16 They include to:
• caution or reprimand the practitioner;6
3 'Applicant's submissions on conduct and costings' undated and filed 12 January 2026. Although mis-labelled,
these are the Respondent's submissions.
4 National Law, s 196(1)(b)(iii).
5 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA), s 19.
6 National Law, s 196(2)(a).
-- 5 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 6
• impose a condition on the practitioner's registration;7
• require the practitioner to pay a fine of no more than $30,000 to
the Board;8
• suspend the practitioner's registration for a specified period;9 and
• cancel the practitioner's registration.10
17 Further, s 196(4) of the National Law provides that if the Tribunal
decides to cancel a person's registration the Tribunal may also decide,
amongst other things, to prohibit the person from providing any health
service or a specified health service, permanently, or for a stated period.11
18 Section 5 of the National Law includes the following definition of
a 'health service':
health service includes the following services, whether provided as
public or private services -
(a) services provided by registered health practitioners;
(b) hospital services;
(c) mental health services;
(d) pharmaceutical services;
(e) ambulance services;
(f) community health services;
(g) health education services;
(h) welfare services necessary to implement any services referred to
in paragraphs (a) to (g);
(i) services provided by dietitians, masseurs, naturopaths, social
workers, speech pathologists, audiologists or audiometrists;
(j) pathology services;
19 On 10 April 2026, relevant amendments to the National Law, made
by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other
7 National Law, s 196(2)(b).
8 National Law, s 196(2)(c).
9 National Law, s 196(2)(d).
10 National Law, s 196(2)(e).
11 National Law, s 196(4)(b).
-- 6 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 7
Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (Qld) (Amending Act), came into
effect.12
20 The amendments included the requirement for a responsible
Tribunal13 to make a reinstatement order before a person can apply to a
National Board for registration after their registration has been cancelled
or suspended.14
21 Further, if a person's registration is cancelled or if they do not hold
registration, the Tribunal is empowered to impose a period during which
they may not apply to a responsible Tribunal for a reinstatement order.15
22 A 'disqualified person' includes a person 'whose registration has
been cancelled by a responsible tribunal'.16
23 With respect to costs, s 195 of the National Law provides that the
Tribunal may make any order about the costs of the proceedings that it
considers appropriate.17
Legal principles
24 In Pharmacy Board of Australia and Teh (Teh)18, the Tribunal,
citing Psychology Board of Australia and Fawcett (Fawcett)19
summarised the principles that apply to the imposition of a sanction
under the National Law. The Tribunal stated:
12 The Tribunal received submissions about the changes to the law from the Applicant in a letter dated
27 May 2026. The Applicant requested an amendment to the orders sought due to the introduction of
reinstatement orders by the Amending Act which affected the form of the orders sought. Specifically, one of
the orders initially sought by the Board was that the Practitioner be disqualified from applying for registration
for a period of 12 months. However, by virtue of the Amending Act, if Ms Bastin's registration is cancelled
she would be a 'disqualified person' and would be required to apply to the Tribunal for a reinstatement order.
Consequently, the correct form of the order is for the Tribunal to impose a period during which she may not
apply for a reinstatement order. Ms Bastin was given the opportunity to respond to the Applicant's letter of
27 May 2026 or to advise if she did not wish to do so. On 29 May 2026, Ms Bastin provided written
confirmation to the Tribunal that she did not wish to respond.
13 As we stated in our Primary Reasons at para [5], this Tribunal is a 'Responsible Tribunal' - see
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA), s 19. See also the repealed
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA), s 6, which applied previously.
14 National Law, s 198A(1) and s 198E.
15 National Law, s 196(4)(aa).
16 National Law, s 5.
17 See also, s 87 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). The starting point in Tribunal
proceedings is that, unless otherwise specified in the SAT Act or the enabling Act, the parties bear their own
costs: see SAT Act, s 87(1). The Tribunal may exercise discretion to make an order for the payment by a party
of all or any of the costs of another party in certain circumstances: SAT Act, s 87(2).
18 Pharmacy Board of Australia and Teh [2025] WASAT 30 (Teh) at [51].
19 Psychology Board of Australia and Fawcett [2023] WASAT 86 at [52] - [56].
-- 7 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 8
1. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is the protection of the
public and not the punishment of the practitioner.
2. The protection of the public is achieved by making orders which
prevent a person who is unfit to practise from practising and by
making orders which seek to maintain proper professional
standards.
3. The protection of the public has various dimensions. They
include:
a. the need to protect the public from the practitioner's
conduct;
b. the need to deter the practitioner from repeating the
conduct in the future (that is, specific deterrence); and
c. the need to maintain public confidence in the profession
by reinforcing the high standards required of
practitioners more generally and denouncing
transgressions for the purpose of deterring others from
engaging in similar conduct (that is, general deterrence).
4. Because the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is the protection
of the public, the impact that an appropriate penalty will have on
the practitioner and any resulting personal hardship to the
practitioner, are secondary considerations.
5. The appropriate sanction is to be considered at the time it is
imposed, rather than by reference to the date of the conduct.
6. In some cases, a global penalty may be appropriate as an
alternative to individual penalties for each instance of
misconduct. A global penalty will generally be imposed in cases
where the facts of the case are inextricably woven together or
where the penalty for a less serious transgression is subsumed by
the penalty for a more serious transgression.
7. The Tribunal is exercising a discretion when it is determining the
appropriate penalty. This involves weighing up of factors
including the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings being to
protect the public, the facts of the case, the penalties imposed in
previous cases similar to the case before the Tribunal, personal
and general deterrence, the practitioner's personal circumstances
and any mitigating factors.
-- 8 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 9
25 Protection of the public involves both specific and general and
deterrence. This was explained by the New South Wales Court of Appeal
in Health Care Complaints Commission v Do:20
The objective of protecting the health and safety of the public is not
confined to protecting the patients or potential patients of a particular
practitioner from the continuing risk of his or her malpractice or
incompetence. It includes protecting the public from the similar
misconduct or incompetence of other practitioners and upholding public
confidence in the standards of the profession. That objective is achieved
by setting and maintaining those standards and, where appropriate, by
cancelling the registration of practitioners who are not competent or
otherwise not fit to practise, including those who have been guilty of
serious misconduct. Denouncing such misconduct operates both as a
deterrent to the individual concerned, as well as to the general body of
practitioners. It also maintains public confidence by signalling that those
whose conduct does not meet the required standards will not be permitted
to practise.
26 Despite the specific deterrence aspect to the protection of the public,
the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the practitioner.
This was explained by the Supreme Court of South Australia in Craig v
The Medical Board of South Australia:21
The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public, not to
punish a practitioner in the sense in which punishment is administered
pursuant to the criminal law. A disciplinary tribunal protects the public
by making orders which will prevent persons who are unfit to practise
from practising, or by making orders which will secure the maintenance
of proper professional standards. A disciplinary tribunal will also
consider the protection of the public, and of the relevant profession, by
making orders which will assure the public that appropriate standards are
being maintained within the relevant profession.
27 A practitioner's personal circumstances are relevant but carry less
weight than the protection of the public. In Pharmacy Board of
Australia and Hegde the Tribunal observed:22
As the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to ensure the protection of
the public, the impact which a penalty will have on a practitioner who
has been found to have committed professional misconduct is necessarily
a secondary consideration. As such, the personal circumstances of the
practitioner, although relevant, carry less weight and may not override
20 Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [35].
21 Craig v The Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169 at [41].
22 Pharmacy Board of Australia and Hegde [2023] WASAT 109 at [20], citing Singh v Medical Board of
Australia [2019] WASCA 51, at [33], per Quinlan CJ and Pritchard JA.
-- 9 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 10
the Tribunal's obligation to make orders which secure the protection of
the public. (footnotes omitted)
28 Further, in Teh the Tribunal observed:23
… Personal hardship or detriment that may arise from being disciplined
cannot override the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. Nor can it result
in the imposition of a penalty which is otherwise an inadequate penalty
for the conduct concerned.
29 In Teh, the Tribunal cited Medical Board of Australia and Singh
(Singh) in which the Tribunal identified the considerations relevant to
the determination of penalty:24
In Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S) at [30],
the Tribunal identified 12 matters which may require consideration in the
determination of penalty. They were:
1. Is there a need to protect the public against further misconduct by
the practitioner?
2. Is there a need to protect the public through the deterrence of other
practitioners from similar conduct?
3. Is there a need to protect the public and maintain public
confidence in the profession by reinforcing high professional
standards and denouncing transgressions, even if there is no need
to deter the practitioner from repeating the conduct?
4. In cases involving misleading conduct, including dishonesty, can
the public and fellow practitioners place reliance on the word of
the practitioner in the future?
5. Has the practitioner breached any Act, Regulation, Guideline or
Code of Conduct issued by the relevant professional body, and if
so, did the practitioner do so knowingly?
6. Did the practitioner's conduct demonstrate incompetence, and if
so, to what level?
7. Was the conduct isolated, such that the Tribunal can be satisfied
of the practitioner's worthiness or reliability in the future?
8. The practitioner's disciplinary history.
23 Teh at [144].
24 Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S) (Singh) at [30] cited in Teh at [52].
-- 10 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 11
9. Has the practitioner demonstrated insight into the conduct and
remorse for it? If not, does the practitioner thereby demonstrate
that they pose a risk to the community in the future?
10. Does the practitioner have any special skills which it is desirable
to make available to the public notwithstanding the misconduct?
11. The practitioner's personal circumstances at the time of their
conduct and at the time of imposing the penalty, although these
are necessarily secondary to the protection of the public and the
maintenance of proper standards.
12. Any other matters relevant to the practitioner's fitness to practise,
or which may be regarded as aggravating the conduct or
mitigating its seriousness, although these are of less significance
than in the criminal process because of the protective purpose of
the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
30 The Tribunal continued to observe, in Teh, that '[w]hile those
matters are not exhaustive, and there is some overlap between them, they
are a useful framework for considering the circumstances relevant to the
determination of the appropriate penalty in this case'.25
31 We are also of the view that the 12 factors provide a useful
framework for us to apply in this case and will now consider how they
apply to Ms Bastin.
Considerations relevant to the determination of penalty
Is there a need to protect the public against further misconduct by the
practitioner?
32 In our Primary Reasons and the orders made to give effect to them,
we found that Ms Bastin stole numerous items of clothing, shoes, food,
toiletries and other household items from Mr A and Mrs B's home whilst
caring for their two disabled children.26
33 We also found that Ms Bastin was in a trusted position. She was
trusted to look after Mr A's and Mrs B's house and their two disabled
children when they were not there. Ms Bastin was often left unattended
in the house.27
25 Teh at [53].
26 Primary Reasons, paras [180] - [181] and order 1.
27 Primary Reasons, para [188].
-- 11 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 12
34 Furthermore, we found that Mr A and Mrs B were vulnerable
persons. They were aged 69 and 70 years respectively. Mr A was
unemployed, and Mrs B was a housewife.28
35 In addition, we found that Ms Bastin's conduct was not
opportunistic. In our Primary Reasons, we found that Ms Bastin stole
the items over a period of months which involved an element of
forethought and planning.29 She also subsequently sold more than one
pair of shoes and some of Mrs B's clothing on eBay.30
36 We also found that Ms Bastin had not shown any remorse or insight.
She had not apologised to Mr A and Mrs B and has not sought to
reimburse them. When questioned by her employer, At Home Care,
Ms Bastin attempted to minimise her behaviour. She did not cooperate
with AHPRA's investigation, accused AHPRA of defamation, and
threatened to bring a civil claim against them.
37 She did not participate in the Tribunal proceedings, other than early
in the proceedings when she made submissions that evidence in the
Criminal Proceedings before the Magistrates Court could not be used in
the Tribunal proceedings because the complainant had withdrawn the
complaint.31
38 Given that Ms Bastin stole from vulnerable persons when she was
in a position of trust working in their home, in circumstances that were
planned and where she has not demonstrated any remorse or insight, we
are satisfied that it is necessary to impose a penalty to protect the public
from her committing further conduct of this kind.
39 We are therefore satisfied that this factor can be answered in the
affirmative and find that personal deterrence should weigh significantly
in the determination of the appropriate penalty in this case.
28 Primary Reasons, para [189].
29 Primary Reasons, para [190].
30 Primary Reasons, para [175].
31 Primary Reasons, para [191]. Ms Bastin was given opportunities to file submissions and evidence but elected
not to do so. Subsequent to the Primary Reasons, she did, to her credit, comply with the Tribunal's orders which
required her to provide written confirmation by the due dates for submissions and evidence if she did not intend
to file anything.
-- 12 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 13
Is there a need to protect the public through the deterrence of other
practitioners from similar conduct?
Is there a need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the
profession by reinforcing high professional standards and denouncing
transgressions?
40 We have dealt with both these considerations together because there
is some overlap between them.
41 For the reasons we explain below, we are satisfied that both
questions can be answered in the affirmative in this case.
42 As we stated in our Primary Reasons, honesty and integrity are
fundamental and essential characteristics for a nurse.32
43 Nurses are in positions of trust. They are often caring for persons
who are physically or mentally vulnerable. It is essential to ensuring
public confidence in the healthcare system that nurses conduct
themselves with utmost honesty, trustworthiness and integrity when they
are interacting with patients and their families.
44 The following passage from Medical Board of Australia v Win33 is
apposite here:
The honesty and reliability of health practitioners is essential to ensuring
that patients receive proper care and that patients and other health
practitioners may place trust in the expertise of those providing health
care.
45 It is vital to the integrity of the medical system, to patient safety and
well-being, and to ensure public confidence in accessing medical advice
and care34, that other practitioners are deterred from similar conduct and
that high professional standards are enforced.
46 Therefore, we are satisfied and find that general deterrence should
weigh significantly in the determination of the appropriate penalty in this
case.
47 We are further satisfied and find that there is a need to protect the
public and maintain public confidence in the profession by reinforcing
32 Primary Reasons, para [200].
33 Medical Board of Australia v Win (Review and Regulation) (Amended) [2015] VCAT 1289, at [43] cited
in Teh at [63].
34 Medical Board of Western Australia and Bham [2006] WASAT 190 at [54] cited in Teh at [68].
-- 13 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 14
high professional standards (including trustworthiness, integrity and
honesty) and denouncing dishonest conduct.
Can the public and fellow practitioners place reliance on the word of the
practitioner in the future?
48 As we have already outlined, Ms Bastin stole, on multiple occasions
and over a period of several months from vulnerable persons in their
home whilst caring for their disabled children. She has not demonstrated
insight, nor has she sought to offer any explanation or apology.
49 We are therefore not satisfied that the public and fellow
practitioners could rely on Ms Bastin's word, or in her ability to conduct
herself honestly, in the future.
Has the Practitioner breached any Act, Regulation, Guideline or Code of
Conduct issued by the relevant professional body, and if so, did the
Practitioner do so knowingly?
50 In our Primary Reasons, we found that Ms Bastin's conduct
breached Principle 1.2 of the Code of Conduct35 which requires nurses
to practise honestly and ethically and not to engage in unlawful
behaviour, and Element 1 of the Code of Ethics36 which requires nurses,
amongst other things, to behave with trustworthiness and integrity.37
51 We found that Ms Bastin's conduct in stealing multiple items from
Mr A and Mrs B in their home over a period of months whilst occupying
the trusted position of carer for the couple's two disabled children, was a
clear and obvious breach of the obligations in the Code of Conduct and
the Code of Ethics, which we described as being fundamental.38
52 We referred to the gravity of Ms Bastin's conduct as being evident
from the fundamental and serious nature of it.
53 Given Ms Bastin's very limited participation in the proceedings, we
do not know what her awareness was of the Code of Conduct and the
Code of Ethics.
54 However, we are satisfied (on the balance of probabilities) that the
requirements for nurses to practise honestly and ethically and not to
engage in unlawful behaviour, and to behave with trustworthiness and
35 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, Code of Conduct for Nurses (2018) (Code of Conduct).
36 International Council of Nurses, The ICN Code of Ethics for Nurses (revised 2021) (Code of Ethics).
37 Primary Reasons, paras [184] - [185].
38 Primary Reasons, para [186].
-- 14 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 15
integrity are so fundamental Ms Bastin must have known that she was
breaching those obligations when she stole from Mr A and Mrs B.
55 We are satisfied, and find, that Ms Bastin knowingly committed
serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics when she
stole items of clothing, shoes, toiletries, food and other household items
from Mr A and Mrs B when working as a trusted carer for their two
disabled children in their home.
Did the Practitioner's conduct demonstrate incompetence?
56 Ms Bastin's conduct did not demonstrate incompetence.
No allegations were made, and no concerns were raised about
Ms Bastin's competence as a carer for Mr A and Mrs B's two disabled
children.
Was the conduct isolated, such that the Tribunal can be satisfied of the
Practitioner's worthiness or reliability in the future?
57 This is not a case of an isolated instance of stealing.
58 The conduct was, however, committed with respect to one 'client',
Mr A and Mrs B. There were no allegations before us of Ms Bastin
stealing from any other clients.
59 In our Primary Reasons, we found that Ms Bastin stole numerous
items from Mr A and Mrs B in their home over a period of several months
between approximately July 2019 to 22 October 2019.39
60 As we mentioned above, we found that Ms Bastin's conduct was not
opportunistic and involved an element of forethought and planning.
She also subsequently sold more than one pair of shoes and some of
Mrs B's clothing on eBay after stealing them.40
61 The conduct was not isolated, and we find that we cannot be
satisfied of Ms Bastin's worthiness or reliability in the future.
The Practitioner's disciplinary history
62 Ms Bastin has no disciplinary history, which is a factor which
weighs in her favour.
39 Primary Reasons, paras [180] - [189].
40 Primary Reasons, para [175].
-- 15 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 16
Has the Practitioner demonstrated insight into the conduct and remorse
for it? If not, does the Practitioner thereby demonstrate that they pose a
risk to the community in the future?
63 Showing insight and remorse indicates that a person understands
what they did was wrong, why it was wrong and the impact that their
conduct has had on others. Having genuine insight and remorse may
therefore, depending on the circumstances of the case, be an indication
that similar conduct is unlikely to be repeated in the future.
64 As we have already mentioned above, in our Primary Reasons we
found that Ms Bastin had not shown any remorse or insight. She did not
apologise to, or reimburse Mr A and Mrs B.
65 As we mentioned in our Primary Reasons, she sought to minimise
her behaviour to At Home Care by saying Mrs B gave her some of the
clothes. She did not cooperate with the AHPRA investigation. Indeed,
she accused AHPRA of defamation and threatened to bring a civil case
against them.
66 Ms Bastin did not participate in the Tribunal proceedings, other than
early in the proceedings when she made submissions that evidence in the
Criminal Proceedings before the Magistrates Court could not be used in
these Tribunal proceedings because the complainant had withdrawn.
67 As Ms Bastin has not demonstrated any insight into her conduct or
remorse for it, we cannot be satisfied that she does not pose a risk to the
community of committing similar conduct in the future.
Does the Practitioner have any special skills which it is desirable to make
available to the public notwithstanding the misconduct?
68 There is no evidence that Ms Bastin has any special skills which
may be desirable to make available to the public.
The Practitioner's personal circumstances at the time of her conduct and
at the time of imposing the penalty, although these are necessarily second
to the protection of the public
69 As we outlined above, the only submissions Ms Bastin made
concerned whether the Tribunal could consider evidence from the
Criminal Proceeding that was discontinued by the prosecutor because
the complainant withdrew the complaint.
-- 16 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 17
70 Due to Ms Bastin electing not to file any submissions or evidence,
there is no information before us as to Ms Bastin's personal
circumstances, either at the time of her conduct, or at the time of the
determination of the penalty.
71 What is before us, however, is the amount of time that Ms Bastin's
registration has been suspended for. Ms Bastin's registration was
suspended via immediate action on 28 January 2020.41 Thus, at the time
of the determination of this penalty, Ms Bastin's registration has been
suspended for approximately six years and four months. This is a
substantial amount of time.
72 The Board submits that we should give very little weight to the
amount of time Ms Bastin has not been able to practise. In support of
this submission, the Board cited Psychology Board of Australia v
Cassar42 in which the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
stated:
Our role is to determine a period, if any, which is appropriate according
to the applicable principles. This includes having regard to the period
she has already been suspended for, although it is not simply a matter of
subtracting 'time already served'.
The applicable principles require consideration of the nature of the
conduct, whether the practitioner accepts the allegations rather than
contesting them, and at what stage, deterrence, both general and specific,
prior record, evidence of character, rehabilitation, insight and remorse,
delay and any specific mitigating factors such as medical or
psychological contributors, family or other personal circumstances
(although these cannot outweigh the protective factors).
(footnote omitted)
73 We agree with this statement, which endorses a more holistic
approach. That is, that each of the relevant considerations with respect to
penalty need to be considered and evaluated, including the time in which
a practitioner was suspended and unable to work, and the steps they have
taken out of practise to rectify their conduct.43
41 Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency Evidentiary Certificate dated 4 February 2025.
42 Psychology Board of Australia v Cassar [2024] VCAT 450 at [68] - [69].
43 See for example, Medical Board of Australia and Pepulani [2021] WASAT 128 where the Tribunal stated,
at [81] that 'what steps the practitioner has taken to ensure that the misconduct is unlikely to be repeated during
the period of time for which the practitioner has been suspended' is a relevant factor to the determination
of penalty.
-- 17 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 18
74 The Board also submits that little weight should be given to
Ms Bastin's time out of practise because she did not voluntarily take
herself out of practise, has not shown any insight and remorse, and that
a significant part of the time out of practise is attributed to the Tribunal
proceedings which were commenced on 14 March 2024 in which she has
put the Board to proof without meaningfully engaging in the
proceedings.
75 The time Ms Bastin has spent out of practise was, in our view, a
necessary consequence of her own actions in stealing from Mr A and
Mrs B, which resulted in her registration being suspended by way of
immediate action and in these Tribunal proceedings being commenced
on 14 March 2024. It is also significant, in our view, that Ms Bastin has
not demonstrated any insight or remorse and that there is no evidence of
any rehabilitation she has undertaken during her period of suspension.
This is of concern to us because in our Primary Reasons we found that
Ms Bastin's conduct was inconsistent with Ms Bastin being a fit and
proper person to hold registration in the health profession.44
76 As such, whilst we have considered the lengthy amount of time in
which Ms Bastin has been suspended, we are not satisfied that it should
substantially reduce any period of cancellation or disqualification that we
may impose.
Any matters relevant to the Practitioner's fitness to practise, or which may
be regarded as aggravating the conduct or mitigating its seriousness,
although these are of less significance than in the criminal process because
of the protective purpose of the Tribunal's jurisdiction
77 Other than the matters we have discussed earlier in these reasons,
there are no further aggravating factors.
78 Due to Ms Bastin's election not to participate, we do not have any
information from her which may be considered in mitigation such as any
evidence of rehabilitation or any other protective factors that would
mitigate the possibility of the conduct being repeated in the future.
Comparable cases
79 We will now consider comparable cases which, when considered in
addition to the 12 factors we have discussed above, may be of assistance
in determining the appropriate penalty.
44 Primary Reasons, para [200].
-- 18 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 19
80 We discussed comparable cases in our Primary Reasons as
examples of decisions of responsible Tribunals in which health
practitioners who have stolen from patients and the family members of
patients have been found to have committed professional misconduct.
Those cases were Mehra,45 Sotingco,46 BCD,47 Roza48 and
Scheggetman.49
81 For the convenience of the reader, in our Primary Reasons we
provided the following outline of the facts of each case:50
193 In Mehra, a Western Australian case decided by consent, the
nurse took a debit card from a patient's private room at the
hospital where she worked and used it to make 10 fraudulent
transactions to the value of approximately $433.03. The nurse
was found to have engaged in professional misconduct.
194 Similarly, in Sotingco, a nurse stole credit card information from
an elderly patient who was a resident in a nursing home where
she worked. She used the credit card details to make online
purchases of cologne, toiletries and beauty products to the value
of $443 an unsuccessfully attempted to buy clothes online valued
at $1,521. She was convicted of Obtaining Property by Deception
and another related offence. The Tribunal found the nurse to have
engaged in professional misconduct.
195 In BCD, the nurse was found to have stolen $10,000 from a
resident at an aged care facility by transferring the money into her
own bank account on two occasions. She was convicted of two
counts of fraud. The Tribunal found that the practitioner's
conduct was professional misconduct.
196 In Roza, a paramedic stole cash ($580) from the wallet of a
deceased patient whilst he was present in the patient's home in his
role as a paramedic. He was convicted of one count of stealing.
The Tribunal found the paramedic behaved in a way that
constitutes professional misconduct.
197 In Scheggetman, a nurse stole property from the wife of a patient
when she left her handbag unattended in the patient's room.
The nurse was convicted of numerous dishonesty offences.
The Tribunal did not expressly state a finding of professional
misconduct but made orders requested by the Applicant which
45 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Mehra [2022] VR 99 (Mehra).
46 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Sotingco [2018] VCAT 1615 (Sotingco).
47 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v BCD [2024] QCAT 485 (BCD).
48 Health Ombudsman v Roza [2022] QCAT 420 (Roza).
49 Health Care Complaints Commission v Scheggetman [2023] NSWCATOD 48 (Scheggetman).
50 Primary Reasons, paras [193] - [197].
-- 19 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 20
were sought on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person
to hold registration as a nurse. (footnotes omitted)
82 We will now provide further details about those cases, including
mitigating circumstances and the sanctions imposed.
83 In Mehra, the respondent nurse was charged and convicted of
stealing but did not notify the Board within the relevant timeframe.
84 There were several mitigating factors submitted by the respondent
nurse, that were not contested by the applicant Board. They included no
prior criminal or disciplinary history, that the respondent fully
cooperated with the applicant's investigation, that she had demonstrated
significant insight and remorse, and at the time of the offence was facing
financial and pregnancy related pressures.
85 The penalty agreed by the parties, which was approved by the
Tribunal, was a reprimand and an 18-month disqualification from
applying for registration as a health practitioner for 18 months.
The Tribunal also prohibited the respondent from providing, undertaking
or carrying out, services or any acts related to the health service of the
practice of nursing and/or midwifery for 18 months.
86 In Sotingco, the respondent nurse undertook steps towards
rehabilitation including seeing a psychologist and completing two
courses including an ethics course and was found to have insight into the
severity of her offences and as unlikely to offend in the future.
87 The nurse was reprimanded, suspended for a further period of
six months (bringing her total suspension to approximately two years)
and conditions with respect to mentoring and education were imposed on
her registration.
88 The case of BCD which we discussed in our Primary Reasons was
a judgment in respect of the factual findings and the characterisation of
the conduct of the nurse as professional misconduct. In Nursing and
Midwifery Board of Australia v BCD (No 2)51 the Tribunal considered
the sanction that should be imposed. The Tribunal determined that the
respondent nurse should be reprimanded and that (in circumstances
where her registration had lapsed) she was disqualified from applying for
registration as a health practitioner for 18 months because she was not a
fit and proper person to hold registration.
51 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v BCD (No 2) [2025] QCAT 8 (BCD No 2).
-- 20 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 21
89 In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered that the nurse had
no disciplinary penalty, that the offending was serious and 'involved a
significant sum of money taken fraudulently from a vulnerable patient',
that the respondent nurse had not shown any insight or contrition, that
she had refused to engage meaningfully with the Tribunal proceedings,
and there was no evidence of rehabilitation or character before the
Tribunal.52
90 Relevantly, the Tribunal did not place weight on the respondent's
period without registration because there was no evidence that any of that
time was spent on rehabilitation.53
91 In Roza, the paramedic was reprimanded and disqualified from
applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for
six months. The paramedic was also prohibited from providing any
health service until such time as the paramedic obtained registration as a
health practitioner.
92 When determining the sanction to be imposed, the Tribunal
considered that the conduct was serious, that the respondent paramedic
initially failed to co-operate with the police investigation but had since
sought psychological treatment, that he had expressed remorse,
cooperated with the Tribunal proceedings, and that he was suffering from
psychological conditions related to his son's suicide which contributed to
his impaired reasoning.54
93 In Scheggetman, in addition to the dishonesty offences committed,
the respondent nurse had also failed to notify the National Board that he
had been charged with criminal offences within the statutory period of
seven days.
94 With respect to the dishonesty offences which included larceny and
numerous counts of fraud, the Tribunal observed that the offences were
'intrinsically serious' and 'involved persons who were highly
vulnerable'.55 The respondent conceded the complaints against him in
full but otherwise did not produce any evidence to the Tribunal.56
Although he admitted the offences in court and to the Tribunal, the
Tribunal was not satisfied that the Respondent put on any corroborative
evidence to explain why he engaged in the criminal behaviour and the
52 BCD (No 2) at [12] - [14].
53 BCD (No 2) at [14].
54 Roza at [8] - [9].
55 Scheggetman at [23].
56 Scheggetman at [16].
-- 21 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 22
Tribunal was not satisfied that there would be no repeat of the conduct
in the future.57
95 The Tribunal disqualified the respondent from being registered as a
nurse for 12 months and further ordered that if the practitioner was still
registered the Tribunal would have cancelled his registration.
96 In each of these cases, the respective Tribunals have viewed
dishonest conduct by health practitioners towards vulnerable patients in
their care and their family members as being serious conduct which
demonstrated the practitioner was not a fit and proper person to hold
registration. The cases provide some guidance as to the range of
penalties which may be appropriate sanctions in these cases. The range
of penalties include the practitioner being reprimanded, together with
disqualification from registration for six to 18 months in cases where the
practitioner is not currently registered, or cancellation if they are
registered.
97 In Mehra and Roza, the practitioners were also prohibited from
providing any other health services during their disqualification periods.
What is the appropriate sanction in this case?
98 In determining the appropriate sanction in this case, we have had
regard to the 12 factors from Singh which we evaluated and made
findings about above.
99 In summary, we found that:
• Ms Bastin stole from vulnerable clients in their home over a
period of months when she was in the trusted position of caring
for their two disabled children in their home. There was therefore
a need to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in
the health profession by way of specific deterrence to Ms Bastin
and general deterrence to other practitioners from committing
this type of serious conduct against vulnerable clients in the
future (factors 1, 2 and 3);
• Although Ms Bastin had no prior disciplinary history (factor 8),
we were not satisfied that members of the public and the
profession could place reliance on the word of Ms Bastin in
the future (factor 4);
57 Scheggetman at [24] - [25].
-- 22 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 23
• Ms Bastin's conduct did not demonstrate incompetence
(factor 6), however she breached fundamental obligations of a
nurse concerning honesty and trustworthiness in the Code of
Ethics and the Code of Conduct (factor 5);
• The conduct involved planning and forethought and occurred
over a period of months (factor 7);
• Ms Bastin had not demonstrated any insight or remorse for her
behaviour, there was no evidence of any rehabilitation, nor any
attempt to apologise or to make reparations to Mr A and Mrs B,
such that we could not be satisfied that she is a fit and proper
person to hold registration in the health profession (factor 9); and
• Although Ms Bastin's registration has been suspended for
approximately six years and four months, we were not satisfied
that this should substantially reduce any period of cancellation or
disqualification that we may impose in circumstances where we
found her not to be fit and proper to hold registration as a nurse
and where there is no evidence of remorse, insight or
rehabilitation (factor 11). In addition, she does not hold any
special skills which it is desirable to make available to the public
(factor 10).
100 We have also had regard to the general principles we outlined earlier
in these reasons from Teh, citing Fawcett, which include that the purpose
of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public and not to punish
Ms Bastin, as well as the comparative cases.
101 Having weighed the 12 factors in Singh, the general principles and
comparative cases, we are satisfied and find that Ms Bastin should be
reprimanded pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law and that her
registration as a nurse, which is currently suspended by immediate
action, should be cancelled pursuant to s 196(2)(e) of the National Law.
102 Further, we are satisfied and find that Ms Bastin should not be able
to apply for a reinstatement order for a period of 12 months, pursuant to
s 196(4)(aa) of the National Law. We are satisfied that it is appropriate
to make such an order in circumstances where we have found that
Ms Bastin is not currently a fit and proper person to hold registration as
a health practitioner. We have also considered the time that Ms Bastin
has been suspended, together with the circumstances of that suspension,
in concluding 12 months is an appropriate disqualification period.
-- 23 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 24
103 The Board also seeks an order that Ms Bastin is prohibited from
providing any health services, pursuant to s 196(4)(b) of the
National Law, for 12 months. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to
make such an order. The conduct occurred whilst Ms Bastin was
providing health services, rather than in her capacity as a registered
nurse, when she was working as a carer for Mr A and Mrs B's two
disabled children. That sanction is also consistent with our finding that
Ms Bastin is not currently a fit and proper person to hold registration in
the health profession, and it would therefore undermine the purpose of
the protection of the public if Ms Bastin was able to undertake a similar
role during the disqualification period.
Costs
104 The Board seeks a contribution towards its costs in the sum of
$14,000. At 24 February 2026, the Board's legal representatives had
invoiced the Board approximately $18,992 (inclusive of GST), which the
Board had paid.58 In addition, the Board also paid the Tribunal's
lodgement fee of $656.59
105 Where a regulator is successful in a vocational disciplinary
proceeding, the Tribunal will often order that the practitioner is to pay a
contribution toward the regulator's costs.
106 More specifically, in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia
and Burwood,60 the Tribunal cited the relevant principles concerning
costs in vocational disciplinary matters as follows:
The principles which apply in relation to costs in vocational disciplinary
proceedings were set out in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia
and Ward [2022] WASAT 104 at [125] - [127] and [130] as follows:
125 While ordinarily a costs neutral jurisdiction, the Tribunal retains
a discretion to make orders for the payment of costs by a party.
The National Law also contemplates that a 'responsible tribunal'
may make any costs order it considers appropriate.
126 In proceedings commenced by a vocational regulatory body, such
as the Board, the Tribunal will ordinarily make an order for the
payment of costs where the regulator has been successful in
making out its allegations. This is so because regulatory bodies
58 Costs Affidavit, paras 5 - 6 and annexure TDB-1.
59 Costs Affidavit, para 7.
60 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Burwood [2023] WASAT 36 (S) at [53].
-- 24 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 25
perform their functions in the public interest and with limited
resources.
127 In Quinlivan v Legal Profession Complaints Committee, the
Court of Appeal explained:
In Medical Board of Australia and Roberman
[2005] WASAT 91 (S), the Tribunal said that although the
award of costs is a matter of discretion to be exercised in the
circumstances of each case, where a regulatory body is
successful in bringing a complaint of misconduct which
justifies disciplinary action by the Tribunal, there will
usually be a strong case for the exercise of that discretion in
favour of the regulatory body. In this regard, the Tribunal
said [30]:
That is because such bodies perform a function which
promotes the public interest, and usually with limited
resources. The financial burden of bringing
disciplinary action if the body had no capacity to
recover some or all of its costs may be such as
to provide a disincentive to bring disciplinary action,
or when brought, to ensure that the allegations
against the practitioner concerned are properly and
thoroughly presented. It is in the public interest that
such bodies have an expectation that, if the
allegations are made out, the offending professional
will meet or at least contribute to the costs incurred
in bringing the application.
…
130 In Chiropractic Board of Australia and Ebtash, the Tribunal set
out the applicable principles as to assessment of costs.
Such principles include approaching costs assessments in a
'robust and broad-brush approach' in relation to the work
undertaken as well as to ensure that costs are reasonable,
necessary and not excessive. Importantly, the basis of a costs
award is to compensate, not to punish.
(footnotes omitted)
107 The costs of $14,000 sought by the Board amount to approximately
27.5 hours (inclusive of GST) at the Senior Practitioner scale rate under
-- 25 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 26
the Legal Profession (State Administrative Tribunal) Determination
2024 (WA), plus the lodgement fee.61
108 We are satisfied that those costs are not excessive and that they are
reasonable. Applying a broad-brush approach, we are satisfied that the
conduct of the matter included the Board's legal representatives
undertaking following work, in circumstances where Ms Bastin put the
Board to proof of the allegations:
• the preparation, filing and service of the referral of the matter to
the Tribunal;
• attendance at four directions hearings and a mediation;
• the preparation, filing and service of a statement of issues and
written submissions firstly with respect to the conduct and the
characterisation of the conduct, and later written submissions
regarding penalty;
• the preparation, filing and service of the evidence before the
Tribunal including the bundle of documents relied upon by
the Board.
109 We are therefore satisfied that we should order Ms Bastin to
contribute towards the Board's costs, pursuant to s 195 of the National
Law, in the sum of $14,000, to be paid within 28 days from the date of
these orders or such further time as agreed with the Board.
Orders
110 To give effect to the reasons we have set out above, we make the
following orders:
The Tribunal orders:
1. The Respondent is reprimanded pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western
Australia) for the conduct described in the orders made by the
Tribunal in this proceeding on 5 November 2025.
61 The 'Applicant's submissions on sanction and costs' dated 12 December 2025, paras [26] and [31] estimate
that the costs sought by the Board equate to 31.1 hours at the Senior Practitioner scale rate in total.
Although our calculation differs by 3.6 hours, the difference between the calculations is not significant.
-- 26 of 27 --
[2025] WASAT 125 (S)
Page 27
2. The Respondent's registration as a Registered Nurse is cancelled
pursuant to s 196(2)(e) of the Health Practitioner Regulation
National Law (Western Australia).
3. The Respondent is not to apply to the Tribunal for a reinstatement
order for 12 months from the date of these orders pursuant to
s 196(4)(aa) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law
(Western Australia).
4. The Respondent is prohibited from providing any health services
for 12 months from the date of these orders pursuant to
s 196(4)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law
(Western Australia).
5. The Respondent is to pay a contribution to the Applicant's costs
of this proceeding, pursuant to s 195 of the Health Practitioner
Regulation National Law (Western Australia), in the amount of
$14,000 within 28 days of the date of these orders, or such further
time as agreed with the Applicant.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of
the State Administrative Tribunal.
DR M EVANS-BONNER, SENIOR MEMBER
4 JUNE 2026
-- 27 of 27 --