Azam v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 611

CITATION: Azam v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 611 PARTIES: Dr Muhammad Azam (Applicant) v Medical Board of Australia (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR191-13 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters HEARING DATE: 11 September 2013 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President Assisted by: Mr David Gill Dr Jonathan Osborne Dr Jane Turner DELIVERED ON: 4 November 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT: 1. The application is refused. 2. The decision of the Medical Board of Australia of 18 July 2013 to refuse Dr Azam’s application to change or remove conditions under s 125 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) is confirmed. 3. Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) the publication of the following documents is prohibited: (i) Affidavit of Harry Porter McCay affirmed 19 July 2013, filed 19 July 2013. (ii) Bundle of documents filed 7 August 2013. (iii) Exhibit CDT-1 to the affidavit of -- 1 of 14 -- 2 Christopher Dan Templeton sworn 6 August 2013, filed 7 August 2013. (iv) Affidavit of Dr Muhammad Azam affirmed 16 August 2013, filed 16 August 2013. (v) Affidavit of Harry Porter McCay affirmed 21 August 2013, filed 23 August 2013. (vi) Applicant’s submissions filed 23 August 2013. (vii) Board’s submissions filed 3 September 2013. (viii) Applicant’s submissions in reply filed 9 September 2013. (ix) Affidavit of Dr Muhammad Azam affirmed 9 September 2013 and filed by leave on 11 September 2013. THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT: 1. The parties have liberty to make submissions in writing within 7 days as to whether any other documents should be included in the order or whether any should be removed. CATCHWORDS: HEALTH PRACTITIONER – MEDICAL PRACTITIONER – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – where the Board decided to take immediate action and place conditions on the registrant‘s registration – where the registrant applied to the Board for a review of the conditions – where the Board refused to change or remove the conditions – where the registrant applied for a review of the decision in the Tribunal – where the Board submitted it was necessary for the registrant to demonstrate a material change in the registrant‘s circumstances before the conditions could be reviewed – whether a review period applies to the conditions on the registrant‘s registration – whether it has been demonstrate that in all the circumstances the conditions are no longer necessary or appropriate PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the Board decided to take immediate action and place conditions on the registrant‘s registration due to notifications made to the Board – where documents filed in the review application identify -- 2 of 14 -- 3 persons in respect of whom complaints relate – whether a non-publication order should be made Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Qld) s 398ZC Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ss 3(3)(c), 83, 125, 125(1), 125(2)(a), 156, 162, 178(3), 191(4), 196(3) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 20(1), 64(1), 66, 90 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104, cited Pearse v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 392, cited APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): APPLICANT: Mr D O‘Gorman SC instructed by Avant Law RESPONDENT: Ms K McMillan QC instructed by Rogers Barnes and Green REASONS FOR DECISION Background [1] Dr Muhammad Azam is a Medical Practitioner. On 25 October 2012 the Medical Board of Australia took immediate action against Dr Muhammad Azam under s 156 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law). The immediate action taken was the imposition of conditions upon Dr Azam‘s registration. Those conditions may conveniently be called chaperone conditions. [2] Most materially, the chaperone conditions prohibited Dr Azam from consulting, assessing, examining or treating any female person without a chaperone being present at all times. [3] Dr Azam applied to the Board, on 23 May 2013, to have the chaperone conditions amended. The change to the conditions which he sought was to require a chaperone to be present only for intimate examinations of female patients. That application was brought pursuant to s 125 of the National Law. [4] Before the Board considered his application for a change of conditions Dr Azam, on 19 July 2013, made an application to the Tribunal for a review of what was described as ‗the failure to decide within a reasonable time an application to remove conditions on the applicant’s registration‘. The relief sought was that the decision to require a chaperone for all consultations be set aside, and the substitution of a decision that no -- 3 of 14 -- 4 conditions be imposed, or a chaperone be present only for intimate examinations. [5] On 19 July 2013, Dr Azam also made application for an interim order for the removal of the chaperone conditions. The interim relief sought was an order to remove the condition requiring a chaperone for all consultations with female patients. [6] In a decision published on 26 July 2013 the Tribunal said that, whilst not stated in those terms, what was sought by the application for an interim order was, effectively, a stay of the Board‘s decision to take immediate action. The Tribunal noted that s 398ZC of the Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 prohibited the granting of a stay of that decision, but also required the finalisation of a review of the decision to impose immediate action as quickly as possible. At the time, the only decision which had been made, and was thus reviewable, was the decision taken under s 156 of the National Law to take immediate action in the form of the imposition of the chaperone conditions. [7] When the matter was mentioned for directions on 1 August 2013, the Board‘s solicitors informed the Tribunal, and Dr Azam for the first time, that a decision had been made by the Board on 18 July 2013 refusing Dr Azam‘s application for a variation of the chaperone conditions. [8] On 20 August 2013, the Tribunal ordered, by consent, that pursuant to s 64(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the application to review a decision be amended to refer to the decision of the Board to refuse Dr Azam‘s application pursuant to s 125 of the National Law, and that the application proceed as a review of that decision. The present proceedings [9] The recitation of that history is necessary because it establishes the nature of this proceeding. The proceeding is no longer constituted as a review of the exercise of the power under s 156 to take immediate action. It is a review of the exercise of the power under s 125(5) to refuse to grant the application for a change of conditions. [10] A proper understanding of the nature of the proceedings is necessary to identify the applicable considerations and the relief which may be granted. Legislative provisions [11] Section 125 of the National Law, relevantly, provides: 125 Changing or removing conditions or undertaking on application by registered health practitioner or student (1) A registered health practitioner or student may apply to a National Board that registered the practitioner or student— (a) for a registered health practitioner— -- 4 of 14 -- 5 (i) to change or remove a condition imposed on the practitioner‘s registration or endorsement; or (ii) to change or revoke an undertaking given by the practitioner; or … (2) However, the registered health practitioner or student may not make an application— (a) during a review period applying to the condition or undertaking, unless the practitioner or student reasonably believes there has been a material change in the practitioner‘s or student‘s circumstances; or … (4) For the purposes of deciding the application, the National Board may exercise a power under section 80 as if the application were an application for registration as a registered health practitioner. (5) The National Board must decide to grant the application or refuse to grant the application. … [12] Section 156 of the National Law, relevantly, provides: 156 Power to take immediate action (1) A National Board may take immediate action in relation to a registered health practitioner or student registered by the Board if— (a) the National Board reasonably believes that— (i) because of the registered health practitioner‘s conduct, performance or health, the practitioner poses a serious risk to persons; and (ii) it is necessary to take immediate action to protect public health or safety; or … (2) However, the National Board may take immediate action that consists of suspending, or imposing a condition on, the health practitioner‘s or student‘s registration only if the Board has complied with section 157. Correct approach to the decision under review [13] It is argued on behalf of Dr Azam that the Board has never formed the necessary belief to permit it to exercise its powers under s 156 in the manner it has. It is said that the Board asked itself the wrong question or applied the wrong test.1 Dr Azam further contends that the evidence before the Tribunal would not permit the Tribunal to have the requisite reasonable belief that would justify the continuation of the immediate action.2 [14] In my view, these are not the issues before the Tribunal. It is not a review of the decision to impose conditions. The issue is not whether the Tribunal is of the reasonable belief that action under s 156 should be taken. Rather, the issue is whether the conditions, having been imposed under s 156, ought to be changed (or revoked) under s 125. 1 Applicant‘s submissions filed 23 August 2013, at [26] and [27]. 2 Ibid at [4] and [28]. -- 5 of 14 -- 6 [15] Section 125 prescribes no substantive test to be applied, or matters to be considered, by the Tribunal in determining an application to change or remove conditions. [16] In my opinion, the test to be applied in considering such an application is whether it has been demonstrated that the conditions are, in all the circumstances at the time at which the application is being considered, no longer necessary or appropriate. The circumstances will include, but not necessarily be limited to: the nature of the proceedings by which the conditions were imposed; the purpose of those proceedings; the purpose for which the conditions were imposed; and the current circumstances of the registrant. [17] In the context of conditions imposed by way of immediate action under s 156, those circumstances will include whether it has been demonstrated that the conditions imposed are no longer necessary to protect public health and safety. This may require a consideration of whether the protection of the public might than be achieved through the imposition of less onerous conditions. Does Dr Azam need to establish a reasonable belief as to a material change in his circumstances because the application is made during a review period? [18] The Board takes the view that in order to make this application Dr Azam must satisfy the requirements of s 125(2)(a). That is, that he reasonably believes that there has been a material change in his circumstances. The Board acknowledges that this only requires ‗the existence of facts which is sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person’.3 [19] Section 125(2)(a) only requires satisfaction if an application is made ‗during a review period applying to the conditions‘. This raises the question of whether a review period applies to the conditions imposed on Dr Azam‘s registration. [20] The Board is clearly of the view that it does. However, the basis for that view seems to have altered. [21] From its written submissions4 it is clear that the Board was of the view that there was a relevant review period because the Board in its notice of conditions stated that it proposed to review the conditions on the receipt of the completed investigation report.5 The Board‘s reasons for taking the immediate action included that the imposition of conditions would act as a 3 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104 at 112, cited in the Board‘s submissions filed 3 September 2013, at [12]. 4 Ibid at [11]. 5 Affidavit of Harry Porter McCay filed 19 July 2013, HPM-10, pg 68 of the attachments to the affidavit. -- 6 of 14 -- 7 temporary protection measure until the outcome of the investigation was known.6 [22] Dr Azam also considers that a review period was imposed by the Board in making its decision to take immediate action by its statement that it proposed to review the conditions when the investigation report was received.7 However, Dr Azam put his application for a change to the conditions, first, on the basis that the Board could reasonably consider that the review period had expired because the investigation could have, and should have, been completed by the time that application was made. Alternatively, he says that he can demonstrate a material change in circumstances. [23] In my view, both the Board and Dr Azam are incorrect in considering that the conditions were subject to a review period because of that statement in the Board‘s notice of conditions. In my view, a review period referred to in s 125(2)(a)8 is a review period which the National Law requires the Board, a panel, or the Tribunal to impose if conditions are imposed under, s 83(2), s 178(3), s 191(4) or s 196(3). Here, no such review period has been set. [24] Furthermore, the statement by the Board that it ―proposes‖ to review the conditions upon a certain event occurring, namely the receipt of the investigation report, does not set or impose a review period. It is indefinite in both the requirement to review and in the length of the period. [25] In the course of the hearing Queens Counsel for the Board suggested a different basis upon which it may be said that there was a review period. It was said that s 159 operated so as to fix a review period. Senior Counsel for Dr Azam seemed to join in that submission. I reject it. [26] Section 159 sets the period during which the decision to take immediate action has effect. For the imposition of conditions the decision has effect until the decision is set aside on appeal or the conditions are removed by the Board. Neither of those events establishes the period which precedes them as a review period for the purposes of s 125(2)(a).9 [27] In my view, the chaperone conditions were never the subject of a review period for the purpose of s 125(2)(a). Material change in circumstances need not be demonstrated to permit review under s 125(1). 6 Agreed bundle of documents filed 7 August 2013, at pg 109, Decision of the Immediate Action Committee of the Queensland Board for the Medical Board of Australia 25 October 2012. 7 See Agreed bundle of documents, at pgs 119 to 121, Letter of 23 May 2013 from Avant Law to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency in which Dr Azam‘s s 125 application was contained (―Dr Azam‘s Application for Review under s 125‖). 8 And also ss 83 (2), 126(3)(a) and 127(3)(a). 9 The Board did not argue that the effect of s 159 was to preclude a review under s 125. -- 7 of 14 -- 8 Changes sought by Dr Azam [28] In applying to the Board for a change in the chaperone conditions, Dr Azam sought only that the conditions be varied with less onerous conditions being imposed. He sought a condition which would require a chaperone only for intimate examinations of female patients. Dr Azam submitted to the Board that: In terms of the Board‘s role to protect the public we submit that protection will still be provided with less onerous conditions. The fact that the Board is examining these matters is the greatest level of protection possible in our submission. No medical practitioner would engage in misconduct knowing that his practice is under the highest level of scrutiny. Both practices where he works are aware of the conditions on his practice. If even the slightest complaint was expressed by a patient the practice would notify the Board immediately. If concerned about intimate examinations of female patients the Board can address this by requiring a chaperone to [be] present for such examinations – i.e. any examination of the breasts or genitals or which requires the removal of underwear.10 [29] By contrast, in this proceeding Dr Azam seeks an order that there be no conditions relating to a chaperone on his registration.11 The case for Dr Azam [30] In his submissions Mr O‘Gorman of Senior Counsel for Dr Azam has undertaken a detailed forensic examination of the material available in respect of each of the notifications upon which the Board acted in imposing the chaperone conditions. That examination was directed at demonstrating that the Tribunal could not form the reasonable belief that immediate action was necessary to protect public health and safety, particularly when taken together with Dr Azam‘s denial of all the allegations. [31] In respect of two of the notifications, those involving ED and Medicare, it is submitted for Dr Azam that those matters have no relevance to the present application because they do not relate to any sexual impropriety, being the risk from which the conditions are intended to protect the public. That would seem to be correct. [32] Senior Counsel also raises four further matters which he says mitigates against the complaints made against Dr Azam. Those further matters are: a) the role, motive and influence of Dr Azam‘s former business partner, Dr Khan – which is said to cast considerable doubt on the veracity of the allegations; b) the role of ANM, an employee of the practice – which is said to raise questions; c) the role of LL, a nurse in the practice – which is said to be curious; and 10 Dr Azam‘s Application for Review under s 125. 11 Applicant‘s submissions, at [53]. In his application Dr Azam sought, in the alternative, a condition that a chaperone only be present for intimate examinations. -- 8 of 14 -- 9 d) decisions of both the Board and the Queensland Police Services – which are said to be also of some significance.12 Consideration [33] Before immediate action can be taken, a show cause process must be undertaken.13 That show cause process requires notice of the proposed immediate action to be given to the practitioner, and an invitation to be issued to the practitioner to make a submission about that proposed action. The Board must have regard to the submission in deciding whether to take any immediate action.14 [34] That occurred. Dr Azam, through his solicitors, put a detailed submission before the Board dated 18 October 2012.15 In that submission his solicitors addressed in detail the two matters in which sexual impropriety had been alleged against Dr Azam. The submission also addressed the involvement of ANM. It also raised the involvement of Dr Khan and how, it was suggested, he might benefit from the action being taken against Dr Azam. [35] Whilst the matters raised in the submission did not address those issues in the same detail with which they are addressed in the submissions filed in this proceeding, they were raised and were considered by the Board. [36] It is, in my view, relevant that the proposed immediate action of which Dr Azam had been given notice, and which he addressed in those submissions, was the suspension of his registration. It had been submitted on his behalf: In our submission, this is not a case where any action should be taken under the immediate action power and the powers provided by the Act should not be used on the evidence available. Any decision to impose a suspension using the immediate action power in these circumstances, is likely in our view, to be set aside upon a review. If despite the doubts raised by the material and the questionable circumstances in which notifications have been made, some action is considered necessary, Dr Azam is prepared to enter into undertakings to have a chaperone present for all consultations with female patients for the duration of the investigation as long as that is completed in a timely way. [37] Having considered that submission, the immediate action ultimately taken was the imposition of the chaperone conditions rather than suspension. The Board acting in that way was consistent with the requirement that any conditions imposed as immediate action should address the risk specifically and be the least onerous possible.16 In light of the 12 Applicant‘s submissions, at [47]. 13 Section 156(2) National Law. 14 Section 157 National Law. 15 Agreed bundle of documents, at pgs 83-106. 16 Pearse v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 392, [18]. Section 3(3)(c) of the National Law provides that a guiding principle of the national registration and accreditation scheme is that restrictions on the practice of a health professional are to be imposed under the scheme only if it is necessary to ensure health services are provided safely and are of an appropriate quality. -- 9 of 14 -- 10 submissions as to Dr Azam providing a chaperone undertaking and the conditions ultimately imposed, it is perhaps understandable why there was no application for a review of the decision to take immediate action at the time at which the conditions were imposed. Notwithstanding that a review of the decision to impose immediate action was not taken at that time, and notwithstanding that this application proceeded as a review of the decision not to change the conditions under s 125 of the National Law, the written submissions filed on behalf of Dr Azam were framed as though the proceedings were a review of the matters relevant to the taking of immediate action under s 156. Particularly they addressed whether a reasonable belief could be formed that the conditions were necessary to protect the public health or safety. [38] It is difficult, in my view, for Dr Azam to now assert that a reasonable belief could not then have been formed that immediate action in the form of chaperone conditions was necessary. It is also difficult to assert that such a belief could not be formed now. This is particularly so when the application for change of conditions made in May 2013 sought only the imposition of less onerous conditions, not their complete removal. [39] The detailed analysis of the material relevant to the two matters of alleged sexual impropriety does not, in my view, demonstrate that a reasonable belief that there was a serious risk to persons because of Dr Azam‘s conduct and chaperone conditions were necessary to protect public safety could not be formed either at the time at which the conditions were imposed or now. [40] It does not demonstrate that Dr Azam no longer poses a serious risk to persons. Nor does it demonstrate that the conditions are no longer necessary or appropriate to protect public health and safety. [41] The analysis identifies a range of matters the evidence in respect of which would require careful consideration in any disciplinary proceedings which might be referred to the Tribunal. However, in this proceeding, the evidence is not available for examination to facilitate such a careful consideration. Indeed, it was frankly and fairly stated by Senior Counsel for Dr Azam that in identifying those matters17 Dr Azam was not seeking a detailed examination of the merits. Rather, it was done to identify the inconsistencies in the material which was before the Board. [42] Mr O‘Gorman described the proceedings as interlocutory. That is not strictly accurate as the proceedings continued as a review of the Board‘s decision to refuse to change the conditions. However, that description does reflect the fact that the proceedings were conducted without the detailed examination of evidence which would occur in a final disciplinary hearing. Most importantly, the evidence of the two complainants who allege sexual misconduct by Dr Azam was not required to be put in 17 Particularly those at [28], [31], [40], [41], [44], [47] and [51] of the Applicant‘s submissions. -- 10 of 14 -- 11 solemn form. No witnesses gave oral evidence. No cross examination has been conducted. [43] All of the evidence available to each of the Board and Dr Azam will, no doubt, be adduced and fully tested should a disciplinary matter be referred to the Tribunal. Whether that will occur is not yet known. Whilst one might be critical of the delay in the investigation of these matters,18 it is now known that the investigation will have been completed by the end of September 2013 and will be considered by the Board shortly thereafter.19 [44] In addressing the issue of Dr Khan‘s behaviour Mr O‘Gorman submitted that this had affected Dr Azam‘s practice. Dr Azam had been locked out of the rooms he formerly had shared with Dr Khan. This, it was said, had impacted upon the way Dr Azam had been able to engage in his practice as a general practitioner. The impact was that it was easier for him to meet the chaperone conditions if he continued to own his own practice. He could simply make the arrangements himself. As it is now, he has to inform those who engage him that he requires chaperones. [45] These matters were raised in the context of materially changed circumstances under s 125(2)(a) of the National Law. For the reasons I have already set out, I am not of the view that Dr Azam needs to demonstrate materially changed circumstances. [46] When considered outside the context of s 125(2)(a), and in the context of the overall review of the merits of the refusal of the application to change the conditions, these are not matters which would lead me to order a removal of the conditions. The changed circumstances identified do not relate to the risk against which the conditions imposed are intended to protect. The changes are only in respect of the practicability and convenience in compliance. It does not become less necessary to protect female patients by way of the conditions merely because it has become more difficult or inconvenient for Dr Azam to comply. They do not demonstrate that Dr Azam no longer poses a serious risk to persons, or that the conditions are no longer necessary to protect the public. Changes to conditions may be warranted in some circumstances because compliance has become so impracticable or inconvenient that the conditions are no longer appropriate. However, I am not persuaded that this is such a case. [47] In my view, the correct and preferable decision20 is that the application for a change of conditions be refused. Dr Azam has applied for the removal of the conditions. It has not been demonstrated that their removal is appropriate. 18 Section 162 of the National Law requires the Board to ensure an investigator conducts an investigation as quickly as practicable having regard to the nature of the matter to be investigated. 19 It was indicated by Queens Counsel for the Board, Ms McMillan, that the Board would make a decision on the investigation within 4-6 weeks from the end of September. 20 See s 20(1) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). -- 11 of 14 -- 12 [48] In the alternative, Dr Azam has sought that the conditions be changed so that they require a chaperone to be present only during intimate examinations. This is not a case where the evidence establishes that there is only a risk to patients during such examinations.21 The complaints arose from circumstances which did not involve the intimate examination of the patients concerned. Therefore, a change to the conditions limiting the chaperone requirement to occasions of intimate examination is also not appropriate or otherwise warranted. [49] The application is refused and the decision of the Board is affirmed. Closed hearings and non-publication orders [50] Dr Azam sought an order pursuant to s 90 of the QCAT Act that the hearing be closed to the public. He also sought an order pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of information that would enable him to be identified. It is said that a private hearing would be in the interests of justice, and that a non publication order is necessary to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice. [51] In each case, the circumstances relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal‘s discretion are identified as being: a) that another person, Dr Khan, is actively using the information on the public register of the Board to cause harm to Dr Azam; b) Dr Azam is part of a small Pakistani community in Brisbane ‗so that misapprehension of what evidence was provided to the Tribunal, and the decision of the Tribunal on the substantive application, will have far greater effect than in the ordinary case‘; c) Dr Azam‘s children have already been adversely affected by false rumours in the local Pakistani community and the prospects of there being further harm by reporting of matters before any findings are made in relation to the truth or otherwise of the allegations will be extremely significant; d) the allegations will have a serious effect on the applicant‘s professional and personal reputation. [52] It is clear from s 66 and s 90 of the QCAT Act that, usually, the proceedings of the Tribunal are to be public. This is in conformity with the principles of open justice. This usual position should not be departed from in this case. [53] As the Tribunal has previously observed, the fact that matters raised and agitated in proceedings such as this are likely to impact adversely, both professionally and personally, on the registrant concerned, would not ordinarily warrant making orders under s 66 or s 90.22 It is quite likely that 21 Compare Pearse v Medical Board of Australia. 22 Pearse v Medical Board of Australia at [68]. -- 12 of 14 -- 13 such proceedings will also impact upon a registrant‘s family. That too, in the ordinary course, will not warrant the making of orders. [54] Dr Azam‘s daughter, who is 18 years old, has deposed to two boys, one Indian and one Pakistani who attend the same school as she and her two younger brothers, having approached her saying that they had been told that her father had gone overseas because he had killed a person. Such statements and rumours are scurrilous and patently untrue. They also appear unrelated to any matter in these proceedings. [55] However, if such rumours are being circulated then orders made under s 66 and s 90 would seem to have limited, if any, utility in combating them. They do not stem from proceedings. [56] Indeed, the interests of justice seem better served by the public recording of the fact that such rumours have no foundation in any matters relating to Dr Azam‘s conduct as a medical practitioner. [57] Dr Azam has also deposed to his having been shunned by some of the Pakistani community as a consequence of things that have been said by Dr Khan. Dr Azam has been told that Dr Khan has not only referred to the conditions published on the website, but has also stated that the fact that they have been imposed means that they are true. [58] Orders under s 66 and s 90 would not, if they were to be made, remove the conditions from the AHPRA website. Nor would such orders act as an injunction against Dr Khan referring to the conditions, or making mischief about them. [59] I am also not satisfied that any material placed before me establishes that the Pakistani community is, as a group, less able than other groups in the community to understand the true nature and effect of conditions publicly recorded. [60] I am not satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that orders be made. The application is refused. [61] The Board applies, separately, for an order pursuant to s 66(1)(a) prohibiting publication of the Tribunal‘s record to the extent that it identifies, or could identify, all of the complainants save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings. An order suppressing the identity of the complainants, at this time, is appropriate. However, the precise identity of the persons to whom the order is intended by the Board to apply is unclear. An examination of the file identifies a number of persons who have made complaints. An examination of the file also establishes that those persons are able to be identified from a vast array of documents filed in the proceeding. It would be a most difficult exercise to avail the publication of information that may enable those persons to be identified other than by prohibiting the publication of certain documents. The following documents should be subject to the order: -- 13 of 14 -- 14 1. Affidavit of Harry Porter McCay affirmed 19 July 2013, filed 19 July 2013. 2. Bundle of documents filed 7 August 2013. 3. Exhibit CDT-1 to the affidavit of Christopher Dan Templeton sworn 6 August 2013, filed 7 August 2013. 4. Affidavit of Dr Muhammad Azam affirmed 16 August 2013, filed 16 August 2013. 5. Affidavit of Harry Porter McCay affirmed 21 August 2013, filed 23 August 2013. 6. Applicant‘s submissions filed 23 August 2013. 7. Board‘s submissions filed 3 September 2013. 8. Applicant‘s submissions in reply filed 9 September 2013. 9. Affidavit of Dr Muhammad Azam affirmed 9 September 2013 and filed by leave on 11 September 2013. [62] The parties have liberty to make submissions in writing within 7 days as to whether any other documents should be included in the order or whether any should be removed. [63] The Board is yet to, and may never, refer a disciplinary matter to the Tribunal concerning Dr Azam and these allegations. The identity of the complainants, to this point, is only disclosed because Dr Azam has brought this proceeding. The qualification in respect of the parties engaging in and progressing this proceeding is unnecessary. This proceeding comprises only Dr Azam‘s application for a review of the Board‘s decision refusing to change the chaperone conditions. That proceeding is, with the publication of these reasons and the Tribunal‘s orders, at an end. [64] The Tribunal will make an order under s 66(1)(a) in the terms sought by the Board without the qualification. -- 14 of 14 --