PARAMEDICINE BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and SALLERY [2026] WASAT 88

[2026] WASAT 88 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) CITATION : PARAMEDICINE BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and SALLERY [2026] WASAT 88 MEMBER : DR S WILLEY, SENIOR MEMBER MR R POVEY, MEMBER MR D HARWOOD, MEMBER HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 30 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : VR 101 of 2024 BETWEEN : PARAMEDICINE BOARD OF AUSTRALIA Applicant AND CHARLIE SALLERY Respondent Catchwords: Vocational regulation - Paramedic - Disciplinary proceeding - Allegation of professional misconduct - Casual employment at mine site - Expired medications - Dishonesty - Misappropriation and attempted misappropriation of expired medications from employer - Uniform scheduling of medications and poisons - Schedule 8 controlled drugs - Morphine - Schedule 4 prescription only medications - Midazolam and diazepam - Intention to supply expired morphine to heroin-addicted friend - Whether fit and proper person to hold registration as a paramedic -- 1 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 2 Legislation: Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 378(7) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia), s 3(2)(a), s 3A(1), s 5, s 31, s 35(1), s 130, s 156(1), s 156(1)(a), s 157, s 158, s 192, s 193A, s 193(1), s 193(1)(a), Pt 4, Pt 5, Pt 8, Div 12 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA), s 19 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation (Western Australia), reg 4, Sch 5, Pt 1 Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA), s 25(1), Pt 3 Medicines and Poisons Regulations 2016 (WA), reg 62, reg 90(2), reg 95(2), reg 145, Div 9 Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60(2), s 77 Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) Result: Finding that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : N/A Respondent : N/A Solicitors: Applicant : Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency Respondent : N/A Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 -- 2 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 3 Fittock v Legal Profession Conduct Commission (No 2) [2015] SASCFC 167; (2015) 124 SASR 300 Health Ombudsman v Jamieson [2017] QCAT 172 Health Ombudsman v Macdonald [2016] QCAT 473 Health Ombudsman v Niem Quoc Tang [2020] QCAT 165 Hilton v Legal Profession Admission Board [2016] NSWC 1617; (2016) 339 ALR 580 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Chang [2019] WASAT 67 Minitti v Commissioner of Police [2010] WASCA 198 Nadkarni v Medical Board of Australia [2022] WASCA 109 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Hopkins [2025] QCAT 513 Osteopathy Board of Australia v Canagasabai [2024] VCAT 358 Palser v Grinling [1948] AC 291 Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 Sivanpathakumar and Legal Practice Board [2026] WASAT 75 -- 3 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 4 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL 1 On 29 August 2024, the Paramedicine Board of Australia (Board or Applicant), referred Mr Charlie Sallery (Mr Sallery or Respondent) to the Tribunal pursuant to s 193(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia) (National Law). 2 The Board considers that Mr Sallery has behaved in a manner that constitutes 'professional misconduct' under the National Law (Referral). The alleged conduct being that Mr Sallery, while working as a paramedic at the Edna May Gold Mine site in Westonia, Western Australia (Mine Site), had: (a) misappropriated morphine with the intention of supplying it to a friend; and (b) attempted to misappropriate midazolam, diazepam and sodium chloride as well as syringes and needles. 3 The President has ordered that the characterisation of Mr Sallery's conduct is to be determined on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). Summary outcome 4 The Tribunal has determined that Mr Sallery's conduct is properly characterised as 'professional misconduct' under the National Law. 5 That is so because we are satisfied, and we find, that Mr Sallery's conduct in inter alia misappropriating morphine, and in seeking to misappropriate midazolam and diazepam, from the Mine Site, is conduct that substantially below the standard of conduct reasonably expected of a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience. Furthermore, in intending to supply the morphine, a sch 8 controlled drug, to a heroin-addicted friend for use other than under the supervision of a medical practitioner, Mr Sallery engaged in conduct which is inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a paramedic. 6 Our reasons follow. -- 4 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 5 Jurisdiction 7 The Referral arises in the Tribunal's original jurisdiction.1 8 As such, the Board bears the onus in relation to the allegation of professional misconduct that it puts against Mr Sallery. In doing so, the civil standard of proof applies, being on the balance of probabilities. 9 We are required to include in our reasons our findings on material questions of fact.2 In these reasons, where we state that we are satisfied as to the existence of a fact, we mean we are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the fact has been proven. 10 Given the gravity and consequences of the conduct alleged, the approach outlined by Dixon J in Briginshaw,3 also applies. As was explained by the Tribunal in Chang,4 such an approach requires: … clear and cogent evidence to be adduced by the Committee and for the Tribunal to feel an actual persuasion of the occurrence or existence of relevant facts before it can find the practitioner guilty of professional misconduct (or unsatisfactory professional conduct). The Briginshaw approach applies in disciplinary proceedings, because of the nature and seriousness, and potential consequences, of allegations of wrongdoing (or incompetence) made in such proceedings. Background 11 The events leading to the Referral are set out below. This background is drawn from the 'Bundle of Documents Relied Upon by the Applicant' (Applicant's Bundle).5 Mr Sallery's employment at the Mine Site 12 Mr Sallery was registered as a paramedic on the National Register of Health Practitioners, maintained under the National Law, on 27 January 2021.6 13 From 4 to 13 May 2021, Mr Sallery was casually employed with Executive Risk Solutions (ERS), which had contracted with the 1 Nadkarni v Medical Board of Australia [2022] WASCA 109 [28] (the Court). 2 SAT Act, s 77. 3 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 361 - 362 (Briginshaw). 4 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Chang [2019] WASAT 67 (Chang) [8]. 5 Applicant's Bundle dated 13 November 2024 (Applicant's Bundle). 6 Applicant's Bundle, page 398. -- 5 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 6 Mine Site to provide leave coverage for a paramedic. It was Mr Sallery's first employment as a paramedic.7 14 Mr Sallery's role at the Mine Site was to provide medical and emergency response assistance, and to support and assist in, maintaining health and safety requirements. His role also included supervising the inventory of medical equipment and supplies of the first aid station.8 The Poisons Standard 15 The Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (Poisons Standard), provides a uniform approach to the scheduling of substances as well as labelling and packaging requirements. The Poisons Standard is maintained pursuant to, and under, the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth). 16 The Poisons Standard classifies medicines and poisons across nine schedules, for inclusion in relevant state legislation. 17 Relevantly, sch 4 includes prescription only medicines. Schedule 4 medicines are generally only available from a pharmacist on prescription. Both midazolam and diazepam are sch 4 medications. 18 Schedule 8 to the Poisons Standard includes controlled drugs, being substances which should be available for use, typically on prescription, but are restricted in terms of their manufacture, supply, distribution, possession and use, to reduce the potential for abuse, misuse and physical or psychological dependence. Morphine is a sch 8 medication. 19 In these reasons, we will refer to the morphine, midazolam and diazepam that were found in Mr Sallery's possession and/or in his personal effects on 13 May 2021, together as the Medications. 20 Notwithstanding the Poisons Standard, both sch 4 and sch 8 medications were authorised to be kept at the Mine Site. As a paramedic, Mr Sallery had access to, and was responsible for, the Mine Site's supply of the medical and first aid supplies, including the Medications. 21 Part 3 of the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (WA) (MP Act), read with div 9 of the Medicines and Poisons Regulations 2016 (WA) 7 Transcript of interview with Respondent on 8 June 2022; Applicant's Bundle, page 243. 8 Applicant's Bundle, pages 198 to 200. -- 6 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 7 (MP Regs), authorises paramedics to 'administer, possess, prescribe, supply or use/medicines in the lawful practice of their profession.9 The Mine Site's procedure for the disposal of expired medications 22 Mr Sallery was required to comply with the Mine Site's Medication Management Procedure (MMP). The MMP included detailed instructions on the procedure for the storage and disposal of expired sch 4 and sch 8 medications at the Mine Site (Storage/Disposal Procedure).10 23 The Storage/Disposal Procedure provided that expired medication be recorded in a register, moved to a separate locked cupboard with a specific storage space for expired medication,11 before being taken to a local pharmacy for disposal. The medication disposal form was required to be completed by the pharmacist, which was then to be kept on file at the Mine Site.12 24 On Mr Sallery's commencement (on 4 May 2021), Mr Michael Cartwright, a paramedic, provided him with 3 days of orientation as to relevant expectations and procedures at the Mine Site.13 The orientation included a drug handover from Mr Cartwright to Mr Sallery.14 25 There is inconsistent evidence as to whether Mr Sallery's orientation encompassed the procedure for expired medications. When interviewed, Mr Sallery informed the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), that he was not instructed on the disposal of expired medications.15 26 Following Mr Sallery's interview, the AHPRA issued ERS with a notice to produce information, pursuant to sch 5, pt 1 of the National Law, specifically relating to the 'training Mr Sallery was given re medication storage/disposal'.16 9 MP Act, s 25(1); MP Regs, reg 62. 10 Applicant's Bundle, pages 343 to 355; MMP, paras 4.8, 4.8.2. 11 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, page 103. 12 Statement of Richard Walker; Applicant's Bundle, page 112. 13 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, page 100. 14 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, page 100. 15 Transcript of AHPRA interview with Mr Sallery conducted 8 June 2022; Applicant's Bundle, page 247. 16 Applicant's Bundle, page 337. -- 7 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 8 27 In its response, ERS informed the AHPRA that Mr Sallery received 'comprehensive training on medical storage and disposal' in accordance with the Mine Site's MMP (which was itself prepared by ERS).17 28 In addition, Mr Andrew Chandler, the Mine Site's Health, Safety, Environment and Training (HSET), informed the AHPRA that on either 8 or 9 May 2021, he had also explained to Mr Sallery the procedure for dealing with expired medication. In doing so, Mr Chandler explained that any expired medication was to be notarised with the word 'Expired' written across the box, and placed in the Mine Site's drug safe, until it could be taken to the pharmacy in Merredin, where the medications would be signed-over.18 29 While Mr Sallery agreed that Mr Chandler explained how to dispose of expired medications, he says he was instead told to throw all medications in the bin.19 30 These reasons will include our findings relating to these differing accounts. Events on 13 May 2021 The handover at the conclusion of Mr Sallery's final shift 31 On 13 May 2021, at the conclusion of his final shift, the Respondent undertook the handover process with Mr Cartwright, which included a review of the drug register.20 32 On reviewing the drug register, Mr Cartwright noted that Mr Sallery had made expired medication entries on 7, 10, 11 and 13 May 2021, for morphine, fentanyl, diazepam, temazepam and midazolam.21 On inspecting the locked storage cupboard for expired medications, Mr Cartwright observed that some medications were missing. At all relevant times prior to the handover, Mr Sallery was responsible for the supervision and maintenance of the Mine Site's medication inventory.22 33 Mr Cartwright asked how the expired medications had been disposed of. Mr Sallery said he had thrown them in the bin.23 17 Applicant's Bundle, pages 335 to 342. 18 Statement of Andrew Chandler; Applicant's Bundle, pages 127 - 128. 19 Applicant's Bundle, page 259. 20 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, page 100. 21 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, pages 106 to 110. 22 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, page 101. 23 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, page 101. -- 8 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 9 Mr Cartwright then checked the bin which was almost empty. Mr Sallery then explained that he had emptied the bin into the general waste.24 34 Mr Cartwright reported Mr Sallery's explanation of his disposal of the expired medications to the HSET Superintendent, Mr Richard Walker.25 Mr Walker attended the handover. 35 Mr Sallery consented to a search of his person and his luggage. Mr Cartwright, Mr Walker and Mr Sallery then went to the Mine Site's accommodation village and to the Respondent's room. 36 Mr Cartwright undertook a 'pat' search, where the following items were found in the pockets of Mr Sallery's jacket: (a) 1 x 20 ml Terumo syringe; (b) 1 x 10 ml Terumo syringe; (c) 5 x 5 ml Terumo syringes; (d) 16 x 25 mg Terumo needles; (e) 3 x 3 ml Vanishpoint syringes; and (f) 1 x 0.9% sodium chloride.26 37 Mr Cartwright then searched Mr Sallery's suitcase while Mr Walker searched a rucksack. Mr Cartwright found an ampule box containing 4 ampules of morphine 10 mg/1 ml in Mr Sallery's luggage (toiletries bag).27 38 On finding the morphine in Mr Sallery's luggage, Mr Cartwright called his direct HSET Manager, Mr Chandler, who directed that, if required, WA Police be called. Mr Cartwright called the police. 24 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, page 101; Statement of Richard Walker; Applicant's Bundle, page 113. 25 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, page 101; Statement of Richard Walker; Applicant's Bundle, page 113. 26 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, pages 101 and 105; Statement of Richard Walker; Applicant's Bundle, pages 113 and 121; WA Police Incident Report, Applicant's Bundle, pages 280 to 283. 27 Applicant's Bundle, page 101. -- 9 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 10 Attendance by WA Police 39 Whilst waiting for the police, Mr Cartwright observed Mr Sallery paying attention to (and fiddling with)28 his right trouser leg, which was bloused into his boot. He says he then heard what sounded like an ampule hitting the ground. Mr Cartwright asked Mr Sallery to surrender the ampule and any other medication he was carrying on his person. Mr Sallery then handed Mr Cartwright: (a) 2 ampules of midazolam 15 mg/3 ml; and (b) 2 ampules of diazepam 10 mg/2 ml.29 40 Mr Cartwright's evidence is that he 'saw [Mr Sallery] withdraw [the ampules of midazolam and diazepam] from the top of his right sock'.30 That is, the ampules were being stored inside the leg of his pants or in his bloused right sock. In his interview, Mr Sallery told the AHPRA that the ampules were not bloused in his sock but were instead in his trouser pocket.31 We will make factual findings on these differing accounts later in our reasons. However, for present purposes, it is sufficient to note that, on either account, Mr Sallery was found with 2 ampules of midazolam and 2 ampules of diazepam on his person, which, when requested, he handed to Mr Cartwright. 41 The police attended and undertook a further search of Mr Sallery's room and person (including a strip search). Mr Cartwright observed that the result of the police search was that a further ampule of midazolam 15 mg/3 ml had been found. However, Mr Cartwright does not know whether the police found the 3rd ampule of midazolam on Mr Sallery, or in his personal effects.32 42 In his police interview, Mr Sallery admitted to taking the morphine and placing it in his personal luggage. He explained that he had a close friend suffering from heroin addiction. Mr Sallery intended to give the morphine to assist his friend in weaning off heroin.33 28 Applicant's Bundle, page 114. 29 Statement of Michael Cartwright; Applicant's Bundle, pages 102 and 105; Statement of Richard Walker; Applicant's Bundle, pages 114 and 120; WA Police Incident Report, Applicant's Bundle, pages 280 to 283. 30 Applicant's Bundle, page 102. 31 Applicant's Bundle, pages 253 and 263. 32 Statement of Michael Cartwright, Applicant's Bundle, page 102; WA Police Incident Report, Applicant's Bundle, pages 280 to 283. 33 Statement of material facts; Applicant's Bundle, page 54. -- 10 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 11 Photographic evidence 43 Mr Cartwright's AHPRA statement included photographs that were taken at the conclusion of Mr Sallery's final shift, during the handover. The Tribunal has before it photographs of:34 (a) the Mine Site's drug cupboard; (b) the morphine box, and the 4 ampules that were found in Mr Sallery's toiletries bag; (c) the midazolam (3 ampules) and diazepam (2 ampules) that were in Mr Sallery's possession (the photograph shows midazolam with an expiry date of April 2021 and diazepam with an expiry date of March 2021); (d) the syringes and needles that were found in Mr Sallery's jacket; and (e) excerpts from the Mine Site's drug register. Charges against the Respondent 44 On 14 May 2021, the Respondent was charged with two scheduled medicine offences (Charges), namely: (1) possession of a prohibited drug, namely morphine, with intent to sell or supply, under s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) (MD Act); and (2) stealing as a servant four 1 ml vials of morphine, under s 378(7) of the Criminal Code. 45 On 20 August 2021, the Respondent pleaded guilty to the Charges in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia.35 Actions taken by the Board 46 On 14 May 2021, the Respondent's supervisor at ERS, Mr Darren Hawkes, notified the AHPRA of the events of 13 May 2021.36 34 Applicant's Bundle, pages 103 to 111, pages 187 to 197 of the Applicant's Bundle includes higher resolution copies of the same photographs. 35 Applicant's Bundle, pages 358 to 365. 36 Applicant's Bundle, pages 1 to 8. -- 11 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 12 The Board takes immediate action 47 On 1 June 2021, pursuant to s 157 of the National Law, the AHPRA provided the Respondent with notice of the Board's proposed immediate action to suspend his registration as a paramedic (Notice).37 48 On 9 June 2021, the Respondent made oral submissions to the Board with respect to the Notice.38 On the same day, pursuant to s 158 of the National Law, the AHPRA provided the Respondent with notice of the Board's decision to take immediate action to suspend his registration under s 156(1)(a) of the National Law.39 49 The Respondent's registration was, and remains, suspended.40 Mr Sallery participates in an AHPRA interview 50 On 8 June 2022, the Respondent was interviewed by AHPRA investigators (by Microsoft Teams).41 51 In that interview, Mr Sallery explained that he disposed of many expired medications at the Mine Site, and the only medication he did not discard was the morphine.42 He told the AHPRA that when he told Mr Cartwright he had thrown out the expired medication, '[he had] completely forgotten about the morphine,'43 which, at that point, was in his toiletries bag. 52 As the AHPRA interview continued, Mr Sallery stated that the morphine was the only expired medication in his belongings.44 He said that he intended to take the morphine to a doctor to try and use it to help his friend who was dealing with a heroin addiction. Mr Sallery considered supplying the morphine to his friend was better than it being 'destroyed'.45 When the AHPRA interviewer queried that the morphine had expired, Mr Sallery responded that it had been expired for less than one month.46 When pressed which doctor he intended to give the 37 Applicant's Bundle, pages 31 to 75. 38 Applicant's Bundle, page 77. 39 Applicant's Bundle, pages 76 to 80. 40 Applicant's Bundle, page 398. 41 Applicant's Bundle, pages 240 to 268. 42 Applicant's Bundle, page 247. 43 Applicant's Bundle, page 247. 44 Applicant's Bundle, page 248. 45 Applicant's Bundle, page 249. 46 Applicant's Bundle, page 250. -- 12 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 13 morphine to supply to his friend, Mr Sallery explained that he 'hadn't thought that far'.47 53 Mr Sallery told the AHPRA interviewer that he was not intending to misappropriate the midazolam or the diazepam.48 Rather he had taken them from the 'drug bag' (a medical supply kit) that he was required to always have with him.49 54 He said that he kept these medications on his person, and not in the drug bag, as he had seen other doctors and nurses employ that practice.50 55 In doing so, Mr Sallery says he was trying to be 'versatile',51 so that he could immediately access these medications if required.52 He said that he kept these medications in his pockets, not in his pant leg or socks.53 At the end of his shift, he would then return the midazolam and diazepam to the drug bag.54 56 In his AHPRA interview, Mr Sallery explained that during the handover, he was found with 'one vial' of midazolam and 'one vial' of diazepam on his person,55 and that he had handed them over to Mr Cartwright, 'when he asked, [actually] before he asked'.56 Later in the interview, Mr Sallery agreed that 2 ampules of midazolam and 2 ampules of diazepam were found on his person, and that he then handed them to Mr Cartwright upon request.57 He denied that the police located a 3rd ampule of midazolam during the strip search.58 57 Mr Sallery maintained that he had thrown the medications in the bin. The AHPRA interviewer then raised the Storage/Disposal Procedure, and the need for expired medications to be correctly disposed of. Mr Sallery responded that he 'didn't really think about' the risks of other people accessing medications that had been incorrectly disposed of and were sitting in the bin.59 47 Applicant's Bundle, page 250. 48 Applicant's Bundle, pages 254 to 255. 49 Applicant's Bundle, page 248. 50 Applicant's Bundle, page 253. 51 Applicant's Bundle, pages 248 and 255. 52 Applicant's Bundle, page 256. 53 Applicant's Bundle, pages 254 and 263. 54 Applicant's Bundle, pages 249, 256 and 258. 55 Applicant's Bundle, page 248. 56 Applicant's Bundle, page 248. 57 Applicant's Bundle, pages 252 - 253. 58 Applicant's Bundle, page 253. 59 Applicant's Bundle, page 265. -- 13 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 14 58 As we noted earlier, Mr Sallery told the AHPRA that the Storage/Disposal Procedure was not explained to him during his orientation.60 As we detail further below, in his written submissions, Mr Sallery says he disposed of the expired medications as per the instruction given by Mr Chandler. Accordingly, he threw medications in the bin.61 AHPRA investigation 59 The AHPRA investigation procured witness statements from Mr Cartwright and Mr Walker, who both confronted Mr Sallery at the conclusion of his final shift on 13 May 2021.62 We have already detailed Mr Cartwright's account of these events surrounding the handover with Mr Sallery. Mr Walker's account is consistent with that provided by Mr Cartwright. 60 On 15 March 2024, the AHPRA procured a further witness statement from Mr Chandler.63 We have earlier referred to Mr Chandler's evidence where he states that he explained to Mr Sallery the Storage/Disposal Procedure for expired medications. A summary of his AHPRA statement is as follows. 61 Mr Chandler recalled that on either 8 or 9 May 2021, new medication for the Mine Site was delivered to replenish missing stock and to replace expired stock. Mr Sallery was required to counter sign the drug register. During that process, Mr Sallery asked Mr Chandler what was to be done with expired medication. Mr Chandler explained the Storage/Disposal Procedure, which required the expired medication to be taken to the nearest pharmacy in Merredin. 62 On 13 May 2021, Mr Cartwright, upon finding the morphine in the toiletries bag, telephoned Mr Chandler. Mr Cartwright queried whether Mr Chandler had told Mr Sallery that expired medications were thrown in the bin. Mr Chandler explained he did not advise Mr Sallery to throw the medications in the bin. Rather, he had explained the procedure set out in the Storage/Disposal Procedure. 60 Applicant's Bundle, page 247. 61 Mr Sallery's Written Submissions to the Board, 6 March 2023 (Mr Sallery's written submissions); Applicant's Bundle, pages 91 to 98, para 16 a. 62 Applicant's Bundle, pages 100 to 128; being Michael Cartwright, Richard Walker and Andrew Chandler. 63 Applicant's Bundle, pages 127 - 128. -- 14 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 15 63 Given that morphine had been found in his personal effects, Mr Chandler advised Mr Cartwright that Mr Sallery should not be permitted to leave the Mine Site, and to call the police if necessary. Respondent's written submissions 64 Following an invitation from the AHPRA on 19 December 2022,64 Mr Sallery's written submissions were provided to the Board.65 65 On 14 June 2024, the Respondent provided the AHPRA with a letter from a health professional, outlining his medical condition and treatments.66 The Referral 66 On 29 August 2024, pursuant to s 192 of the National Law, the Board notified the Respondent of the Referral, as it considered he had engaged in professional misconduct.67 67 The Referral was received by the Tribunal on 13 November 2024. 68 On 2 February 2025, Mr Sallery notified the Tribunal, by email, that he did not wish to participate in the Referral proceedings, and that he does not intend to practice as a paramedic in the future. Applicable legislative scheme 69 The conduct of paramedics, like other health professionals, is regulated under the National Law. 70 The objects of the National Law include to 'provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered'.68 The main guiding principles, and paramount considerations, of the National Law are:69 (a) protection of the public; and (b) public confidence in the safety of services provided by registered health practitioners and students. 64 Applicant's Bundle, pages 86 to 87. 65 Applicant's Bundle, pages 88 to 99. 66 Applicant's Bundle, pages 148 to 152. 67 Applicant's Bundle, pages 158 to 161. 68 National Law, s 3(2)(a). 69 National Law, s 3A(1). -- 15 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 16 71 Part 4 of the National Law establishes the AHPRA. Part 5 establishes the National Boards and, inter alia, their functions. 72 The Board is established by s 31 of the National Law, read with reg 4 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation (Western Australia). By s 35(1) of the National Law, the Board's functions include: (i) to refer matters about health practitioners who are or were registered under this Law or a corresponding prior Act to responsible tribunals for participating jurisdictions[.] 73 Part 8 of the National Law is directed to health, performance and conduct of 'registered health practitioners'.70 Division 12 of pt 8 deals with the referral of matters to 'responsible tribunals'. Perforce of s 19 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024 (WA), the Tribunal is the 'responsible tribunal for Western Australia'. 74 Pursuant to s 193(1) of the National Law, the Board must refer to the Tribunal a matter about, relevantly, a paramedic, if it reasonably believes based on a notification or for any other reason, the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.71 75 The National Law, by s 5, includes definitions of 'unsatisfactory professional performance', 'unprofessional conduct' and 'professional misconduct' as follows: unsatisfactory professional performance: … means the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised by, the practitioner in the practice of the health profession in which the practitioner is registered is below the standard reasonably expected of a health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; unprofessional conduct: … means professional conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of the health practitioner by the public or the practitioner's professional peers, and includes - 70 A 'registered health practitioners' includes, relevantly, an individual registered to practice in a 'health profession'. By s 5, 'paramedicine' is a recognised health profession under the National Law. 71 By s 193A of the National Law, the Board may decide not to refer a matter about a registered health professional to the Tribunal if the Board decided there is no public interest in the matter not being heard by the Tribunal. -- 16 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 17 (a) a contravention by the practitioner of this Law, whether or not the practitioner has been prosecuted for, or convicted of, an offence in relation to the contravention; and (b) a contravention by the practitioner of - (i) a condition to which the practitioner's registration was subject; or (ii) an undertaking given by the practitioner to the National Board that registers the practitioner; and (c) the conviction of the practitioner for an offence under another Act, the nature of which may affect the practitioner's suitability to continue to practise the profession; and (d) providing a person with health services of a kind that are excessive, unnecessary or otherwise not reasonably required for the person's well-being; and (e) influencing, or attempting to influence, the conduct of another registered health practitioner in a way that may compromise patient care; and (f) accepting a benefit as inducement, consideration or reward for referring another person to a health service provider or recommending another person use or consult with a health service provider; and (g) offering or giving a person a benefit, consideration or reward in return for the person referring another person to the practitioner or recommending to another person that the person use a health service provided by the practitioner; and (h) referring a person to, or recommending that a person use or consult, another health service provider, health service or health product if the practitioner has a pecuniary interest in giving that referral or recommendation, unless the practitioner discloses the nature of that interest to the person before or at the time of giving the referral or recommendation[.] professional misconduct, includes: (a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard -- 17 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 18 reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and (b) more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and (c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner's profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession[.] 76 The definition of 'professional misconduct' is not exhaustive. Therefore, behaviour that falls outside these categories, but has the requisite gravity to be so characterised, can also constitute professional misconduct.72 In Panegyres, Vaughan JA explained that:73 … [professional misconduct] under the National Law can include conduct which does not fall within any of pars (a), (b) or (c) in the definition; for example, conduct which was infamous conduct in any professional respect in the sense of being conduct that would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by a practitioner's professional brethren of good repute and competency would be professional misconduct[.] Board's submissions on the characterisation of Mr Sallery's conduct 77 The Board submits Mr Sallery's conduct constitutes professional misconduct under the National Law. 78 The Board states that the stealing of morphine, a sch 8 medication, as well as Mr Sallery's attempt to misappropriate midazolam and diazepam, constitutes serious misconduct. By reference to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal's (QCAT's) decision in Jamieson,74 the Board submits that the Respondent has engaged in a 'serious act of misconduct'. Likewise, the Board refers to Macdonald,75 where a nurse's theft of a sch 4 medication (quetiapine), was also found to constitute professional misconduct under the National Law. 72 Panegyres v Medical Board of Australia [2020] WASCA 58 (Panegyres) [149] - [150], [152]. 73 Panegyres [152] Vaughan JA citing Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 (Allinson) at (763), Buss P and Murphy JA agreeing [11]. 74 Health Ombudsman v Jamieson [2017] QCAT 172 (Jamieson) [27]. 75 Health Ombudsman v Macdonald [2016] QCAT 473 (Macdonald). -- 18 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 19 79 The Board submits that the Respondent intended to steal the Medications. Such an intention, it submits, can be discerned by the concealment of the midazolam and diazepam in his pant leg/socks,76 the morphine being stored in his toiletries bag, as well as being in possession of medical syringes, needles and sodium chloride, each of which are used to dispense medication. It includes the fact that Mr Sallery was less than forthright when he was confronted at the conclusion of his final shift at the Mine Site. In addition, a 3rd ampule of midazolam was later found by the police. 80 Having regard to the fact that the Respondent misappropriated the morphine and was caught attempting to misappropriate the midazolam and diazepam, in his first employed role as a paramedic, the Board submits that his conduct is inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a paramedic. That is because the Respondent has failed to demonstrate the requisite level of responsibility for the administration of medications under the Poisons Standard, including sch 8 medications. 81 Furthermore, the Board considers that the Respondent's conduct is demonstrative of an intentional disregard of the Storage/Disposal Procedure, which he was made familiar with, prior to engaging in the conduct. The Storage/Disposal Procedure is required to be complied with to ensure that the Mine Site complies with its legislative requirements for such medicines, specifically: (a) reg 90(2) of the MP Regs, requires sch 4 medications, such as midazolam and diazepam to be stored in a container, cabinet or room that is locked and is accessible only by an authorised health professional; (b) reg 95(2) of the MP Regs requires sch 8 medications, such as morphine, where there are less than 250 doses, to be stored in a small safe or in accordance with an approved alternate storage arrangement; and (c) reg 145 of the MP Regs provides for the regulated destruction of sch 8 medications, which can only be performed by a health professional ordinarily permitted to obtain, possess or supply such medications, such as a pharmacist. The destruction of sch 8 medications must be detailed in the relevant drug register. 76 Which Mr Sallery disputes, and which we deal with at [103(1)(g)(v)-(vi)]. -- 19 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 20 82 The Board accepts, as we have noted, that the MP Regs authorises paramedics to inter alia administer, possess and supply sch 4 and sch 8 medications in the lawful conduct of their profession. However, the Board submits that MP Regs provide no authority for the Respondent to prescribe morphine to a friend, nor to administer it without the authority or direction of a medical practitioner.77 83 Accordingly, the Board submits that the Respondent's conduct was also inconsistent with the AHPRA and National Board's adopted Code of Conduct (Code).78 84 Furthermore, the Board also alleges that, separate to the theft of the morphine, Mr Sallery's explanation that he intended to supply the morphine to a heroin-addicted friend, is also serious. That is so, because the Respondent: (a) failed to recognise that such a clinical decision was not within his skills and competence; (b) had not sought the views of a qualified or treating practitioner; and (c) by reason of (a) and (b), was acting contrary to the authority he held as a paramedic under the MP Regs. Such conduct being a breach of section 1.1 of the Code. 85 The Board submits that it is inherently unlikely that the drug-addicted friend would have taken the expired morphine under the supervision of a medical practitioner. Accordingly, it submits that the Respondent's conduct also breached section 1.2 of the Code. 86 The Board further submits that, pursuant to s 130 of the National Law, the Respondent was required to, but did not, notify the Board within 7 days of the Charges being laid against him. In addition, by failing to notify the Board as required by s 130 of the National Law, the Respondent has also breached section 8.1 of the Code. 87 For these reasons, the Respondent's conduct is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. Accordingly, the Tribunal 77 Applicant's Bundle, pages 396 and 397; Department of Health guidelines, Working with Medicines: Paramedics. 78 Applicant's Bundle, pages 366 to 395. -- 20 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 21 should find that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct, as defined in s 5 of the National Law, because he: (a) misappropriated the morphine from his employer; (b) attempted to misappropriate midazolam and diazepam, as well as sodium chloride, from his employer along with medical syringes and needles; (c) failed to comply with legislative requirements and the Mine Site's Storage/Disposal Procedure relating to the storage and disposal of the Medications; and (d) breached sections 1.1, 1.2 and 8.1 of the Code. Mr Sallery's written submissions 88 As explained, Mr Sallery has elected not to participate in the Referral proceedings. However, as we have noted, he filed written submissions in the context of the Board's decision to suspend his registration pursuant to s 156(1) of the National Law. 89 Despite his decision not to participate in the Referral, we have taken account of Mr Sallery's written submissions. 90 Those submissions note that he was, at the time of the alleged conduct, 22 years old. While Mr Sallery accepted that he was directed to manage the disposal of expired medications at the Mine Site, he said that he was provided with no detailed instructions as to how the medications were to be disposed of. As a result, Mr Sallery threw the expired medications in the bin. 91 In doing so, he chose to keep some of the medication and syringes. Mr Sallery said that he mistakenly attempted to keep some of the medication (the morphine) because he thought it was rubbish. 92 Mr Sallery said that his taking, and subsequent concealment, of the morphine was not planned; rather it was a split-second decision. 93 Mr Sallery explained that he wanted to use the morphine to help a friend with a heroin addiction. Mr Sallery did not act at the request of his friend nor was his friend aware of his actions. His friend has since passed away. -- 21 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 22 Professional misconduct under the National Law 94 In determining the Respondent's conduct, we are to evaluate the degree of seriousness by reference to the extent by which his actions depart from the proper standards of professional conduct for a paramedic. The gravity of professional misconduct is not measured by reference to the worst cases but by the extent to which it departs from the proper standards.79 95 For a finding of professional misconduct, the conduct must not only be unprofessional conduct that is below the standard reasonably expected, but it must be 'substantially below' that standard.80 96 The term 'substantial' is 'imprecise and ambiguous' and, as such, takes its meaning from its context.81 In the context of laws directed to the regulation of professional conduct, 'substantial' has been taken to '[connote] a large or considerable departure from the standard required'.82 97 It is impossible to exhaustively define the circumstances in which conduct will be regarded as being 'substantially' below the requisite standard. The extent and seriousness of the departure will be relevant, as will the deliberateness of the conduct together with its consequences.83 98 For conduct to be 'substantially below' the acceptable standard, it will ordinarily be conduct that reflects 'a corresponding degree of serious departure from the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience'.84 99 However, it is not the case that all conduct that is 'substantially below' the requisite standard, is to then be regarded as conduct that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration. As Vaughan JA explained in Panegyres,85 such an approach would conflate paras (a) and (b) with para (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in the National Law. To do so would leave paras (a) and (b) without an independent scope of operation. Paragraph (c) of what is an inclusive definition, 'expounds the concept of 79 Fittock v Legal Profession Conduct Commission (No 2) [2015] SASCFC 167; (2015) 124 SASR 300 [110] (the Court); see also Health Ombudsman v Niem Quoc Tang [2020] QCAT 165 [16] - [17]; Osteopathy Board of Australia v Canagasabai [2024] VCAT 358 [17]. 80 Panegyres [155] (Vaughan JA). 81 Palser v Grinling [1948] AC 291, 371. 82 Fittock [110]. 83 Fittock [110]. 84 Panegyres [157]. 85 Panegyres [157]. -- 22 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 23 professional misconduct in terms of conduct that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession'.86 100 The National Law does not define the expression 'fit and proper'. As the Tribunal recently observed in Sivanpathakumar,87 it is a term that has, for many years and across many disciplines, been used in matters concerning vocational regulation. Its meaning is derived from its context.88 In the context of the National Law, it is a phrase that prompts the widest scope of inquiry.89 101 Within the concept of 'fit and proper', is the requirement that a health professional understand the responsibilities of their role, and the capacity to discharge them. In doing so, it is trite that a paramedic's conduct must align with proper professional standards. In addition, as with legal practitioners, the conduct of health professionals must be such that it commands confidence and trust in their work,90 by upholding the highest ethical standards, including honesty and integrity, consistent with their responsibilities.91 In our view, that is particularly so for health professionals working (largely) autonomously in remote areas in support of industries, the carrying out of which involve inherent health and safety risks. Our findings 102 Based on the evidence provided by the Board in the Referral, we are satisfied, and feel an actual persuasion of their occurrence, in each of our findings that: (1) The Respondent: (a) on his commencement at the Mine Site on 4 May 2021, underwent 3 days of orientation. By reference to the correspondence from ERS to AHPRA,92 Mr Sallery's orientation included specific training in the Mine Site's Storage/Disposal Procedure, maintenance of the drug 86 Panegyres [156]. 87 Sivanpathakumar and Legal Practice Board [2026] WASAT 75 [30]. 88 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, 349 (Mason J). 89 Minitti v Commissioner of Police [2010] WASCA 198 [11] (Pullin JA, Newnes JA and Mazza J agreeing). 90 Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409, 420 (Dixon J). 91 Hilton v Legal Profession Admission Board [2016] NSWC 1617; (2016) 339 ALR 580 [110]. 92 Applicant's Bundle, page 337. -- 23 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 24 register, and the process for dealing with expired medications; (b) was provided by Mr Chandler, on either 8 or 9 May 2021, with a further explanation of the procedure for expired medications. At no point was Mr Sallery told that expired medications were to be disposed of in the bin; (c) at around 12.10 pm on 13 May 2021,93 misappropriated a box containing 4 ampules of morphine (10 mg/1 ml) which he then placed in his toiletries bag. The Charges to which Mr Sallery pleaded guilty include the stealing (as a servant) of the morphine under the Criminal Code; (d) near the completion of his final shift on 13 May 2021, was caught attempting to misappropriate: (i) 2 ampules of midazolam (15 mg/3 ml) and 2 ampules of diazepam (10 mg/2 ml) on his person; (ii) syringes, needles and sodium chloride in his jacket; and (iii) a 3rd ampule of midazolam (15 mg/3 ml), which was found by the police during their search; and (e) had not taken midazolam and diazepam from the drug bag with an intention to have them ready for immediate, legitimate use at the Mine Site. Mr Sallery's explanation as to why the midazolam and diazepam were on his person is undermined by the following evidence: (i) the photographs of the 3 midazolam and 2 diazepam ampules that were recovered from Mr Sallery's person and from the police search, identify 3 ampules of midazolam with one expiry date visible and 2 ampules of diazepam with one expiry date visible. Each visible expiry date 93 Being the time that Mr Sallery signed the drug register that the morphine was expired stock: Applicant's Bundle, page 110. -- 24 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 25 evinces that those ampules were each expired medication.94 In addition, the Department of Health notification form relating to 'Loss, theft or incident for investigation' states that the loss or theft was of the following medicines: Expired - morphine, 4 ampules; Expired - midazolam, 3 ampules; Expired - diazepam, 2 ampules.95 Furthermore, following Mr Sallery's arrest, Mr Cartwright carried out a full drug count (at around 4.00 pm on 13 May 2021) where he found many missing medications including: 9 x ampules morphine 10 mg/1 ml; 5 x ampules diazepam 10 mg/2 ml; 10 x ampules midazolam 15 mg/3 ml. In all the circumstances, we find that the midazolam and diazepam recovered from Mr Sallery had expired and therefore more likely to be some of the expired medications that he had purported to dispose of, rather than unexpired medication capable of being legitimately used;96 (ii) the location of the 2 ampules of midazolam and 2 ampules of diazepam found on Mr Sallery's person. As outlined below, we find that those medications were in his right sock/pants as described by Mr Cartwright, rather than in his pocket, as asserted by Mr Sallery. Mr Sallery's explanation that those medications were on his person because they were ready for use on patient/s is inconsistent with them being stored in his pant leg/sock. Rather, it is consistent with an attempt to misappropriate those medications; and (iii) his statement in his AHPRA interview that he was required to, and always did, have the drug bag 94 Applicant's Bundle, page 191. 95 Applicant's Bundle, pages 132 - 133. 96 Applicant's Bundle, page 247. -- 25 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 26 with him suggests there is no reason to remove those medications to be 'versatile';97 (f) intended to supply the morphine to a drug-addicted friend. The Charges to which Mr Sallery pleaded guilty include the intention to sell or supply the morphine, contrary to the MD Act; (g) gave false and/or misleading evidence in his interview of 8 June 2022 with the AHPRA, where he stated: (i) the midazolam and diazepam that were found on his person (set out at (d) above) were from (and were to be returned to) the drug bag. For the reasons set out above, we have found that the midazolam and diazepam was expired and Mr Sallery was attempting to misappropriate them; (ii) he intended to liaise with a doctor to provide the morphine to his heroin-addicted friend. We find it implausible that a suitably qualified medical practitioner would agree to give expired morphine, which had been misappropriated, for the treatment of a heroin addiction. Rather, if deemed appropriate, a medical practitioner would simply lawfully prescribe morphine for such treatment; (iii) '[he had] completely forgotten about the morphine', when, after telling Mr Cartwright that all the expired medication had been thrown in the bin, the morphine was found in his personal effects.98 This statement lacks credibility when in fact, Mr Sallery had placed the morphine in his toiletries bag with the intention of misappropriating it for the use of his heroin addicted friend. Furthermore, it is inherently unlikely that he simply forgot, given that he signed the morphine as being expired in the drug 97 Applicant's Bundle, pages 248 and 255. 98 Applicant's Bundle, page 247. -- 26 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 27 register at 12.10 pm on 13 May 2021, a short time before the handover with Mr Cartwright;99 (iv) that the only medication he did not discard was the morphine.100 As outlined above, he was also found in possession of expired midazolam and diazepam. When he was later asked whether the midazolam and diazepam were from the expired stock as with the morphine, Mr Sallery responded that they were instead from the drug bag101 and he intended to return them. We have rejected that explanation; (v) that at the handover on 13 May 2021, he only had 'one vial' of midazolam and 'one vial' of diazepam on his person102 and that he had handed them over to Mr Cartwright, '… before he asked [for them]'.103 Then later in the interview he agreed, when it was put to him, that he actually was found with 2 ampules of midazolam and 2 ampules of diazepam on his person.104 Furthermore, we prefer the evidence of Mr Cartwright which was that Mr Sallery handed over 2 ampules of midazolam and 2 ampules of diazepam only after Mr Cartwright saw Mr Sallery fiddling with his trouser leg and then heard an ampule fall to the ground, following which he required that Mr Sallery surrender the ampule, plus any others that he had in his possession;105 (vi) that the ampules of midazolam and diazepam were found in his pockets,106 and not in his pants/socks. Mr Cartwright's contemporaneous 'incident theft report', made on 19 May 2021, states clearly that Mr Sallery pulled the ampules 99 Applicant's Bundle, page 197. 100 Applicant's Bundle, page 247. 101 Applicant's Bundle, page 249. 102 Applicant's Bundle, page 248. 103 Applicant's Bundle, page 248. 104 Applicant's Bundle, pages 252 - 253. 105 Applicant's Bundle, pages 102 and 137. 106 Applicant's Bundle, pages 254 and 263. -- 27 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 28 from his right sock.107 Mr Cartwright's AHPRA statement also clearly states that he observed Mr Sallery withdraw the ampules from the top of his right sock.108 The Police Report dated 13 May 2021 also noted that the diazepam had been 'secreted in his sock'.109 However, the police were not present at the time so their report can only reflect the explanation given to them on 13 May 2021 rather than first hand evidence. Nevertheless, we prefer the clear, consistent and unequivocal evidence of Mr Cartwright and the contemporaneous police report as against the explanation given by Mr Sallery; (vii) that the syringes, needles and sodium chloride found on his person were in the same pocket of his pants as the 2 ampules of midazolam and 2 ampules of diazepam.110 However, the evidence of Mr Cartwright and Mr Walker, which we accept, was that the syringes, needles and sodium chloride were found in the inside pockets of Mr Sallery's jacket;111 (viii) the police did not locate a 3rd ampule of midazolam during the strip search.112 As noted above Mr Sallery agreed, when it was put to him, that he had 2 ampules of midazolam and 2 ampules of diazepam113 on his person. However, Mr Cartwright's evidence was that the police used the medic's room to conduct a search of Mr Sallery and they located a further ampule of midazolam 15 mg/3 ml and added that to the other 107 Applicant's Bundle, page 114. 108 Applicant's Bundle, page 102. 109 Applicant's Bundle, page 280. 110 Applicant's Bundle, page 255. 111 Statement of Michael Cartwright, pages 101 and 105 of the Applicant's Bundle; Statement of Richard Walker, pages 113 and 121 of the Applicant's Bundle; WA Police Incident Report, pages 280 to 283 of the Applicant's Bundle. 112 Applicant's Bundle, page 253. 113 Applicant's Bundle, pages 252 - 253. -- 28 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 29 found items.114 Mr Walker gave similar evidence.115 The Board alleges that the 3rd ampule of midazolam was found in Mr Sallery's room.116 The police search of Mr Sallery took place in SU5, the medic's designated room. Whether the 3rd ampule of midazolam was retrieved by police during the strip search of Mr Sallery's person, or from his room or effects, is unclear. However, we accept the evidence of Mr Cartwright and Mr Walker that a 3rd ampule of midazolam was found in Mr Sallery's possession, not in the drug bag. As noted above, we found that the 3rd ampule of midazolam was expired. If the 3rd ampule was located in Mr Sallery's belongings in the medic's room, as the morphine was, then this is inconsistent with Mr Sallery's statement in his AHPRA interview that he only had morphine in his belongings.117 If it was located on his person, then this is inconsistent with Mr Sallery's explanation that he only had 2 ampules of midazolam and 2 ampules of diazepam on his person; 118 and: (xi) that Mr Chandler, on either 8 or 9 May 2021, told Mr Sallery that all expired medications at the Mine Site were to be thrown into the same bin.119 We prefer and accept the evidence of Mr Chandler that he explained the correct procedure for the disposal of expired medications, as per the Storage/Disposal Procedure. (2) By engaging in the conduct set out in (1) above, the Respondent breached: 114 Statement of Michael Cartwright, page 102 of the Applicant's Bundle; email from Michael Cartwright dated 14 May 2021, pages 136 to 137; WA Police Incident Report, pages 280 to 283 of the Applicant's Bundle. 115 Applicant's Bundle, page 114. 116 Applicant's submissions filed 17 June 2025, para 33. 117 Applicant's Bundle, page 248. 118 Applicant's Bundle, pages 252 - 253. 119 Applicant's Bundle, page 259. -- 29 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 30 (a) the Mine Site's Storage/Disposal Procedure; (b) the Code (section 1.1); (c) legislative requirements for the disposal or destruction of expired medications, such as morphine, pursuant to the MP Regs; and (d) the oral instructions of his HSET Manager, Mr Chandler. (3) In terms of (1)(f) above, and the plan to supply the morphine to a heroin-addicted friend, he was intending to: (a) engage in conduct that was well beyond his skills and experience as a (very junior) paramedic; (b) act well beyond his authority as a paramedic; and (c) facilitate his friend taking an expired sch 8 control drug other than under the supervision of a medical practitioner and, in doing so, breached section 1.2 of the Code; and (4) Breached s 130 of the National Law, in that he failed to notify the Board within 7 days of being charged with the offences relating to the Medications. As a result, the Respondent also breached section 8.1 of the Code. Disposition: our determination 103 Having regard to our findings above, for the seven reasons that follow, we are satisfied that the Respondent has engaged in 'professional misconduct' under the National Law. 104 First, as was canvassed in the Board's submissions, the theft of medication by a health practitioner is serious conduct that has often resulted in a finding of professional misconduct. 105 In Jamieson,120 the QCAT characterised the conduct of a nurse who stole three boxes of antibiotics (amoxicillin, staphylex and cephalexin), as a 'serious act of misconduct'. The nurse had stolen the antibiotics to treat her son's recurrent medical condition. In concluding that the theft constituted professional misconduct, the QCAT explained that the 120 Jamieson [27]. -- 30 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 31 theft of antibiotics does not raise quite the same level of concern as the taking of illicit drugs, or patently dangerous, habit-forming drugs. 106 In Macdonald, a nurse stole 11 boxes (totalling 110 tablets) of sch 4 medication (quetiapine) from the medical centre where she worked. The QCAT found it unnecessary to refer to any code of conduct or medical centre policy to determine that the conduct was professional misconduct. The QCAT determined that:121 … the conduct in question was unprofessional, and substantially below the standard reasonably to be expected of a registered health practitioner of equivalent level of training or experience. The stealing of the prescription drugs from an employer by a nurse represents a significant breach of trust and abuse of position which is not tolerable within the profession. It is simply conduct that nurses must not engage in. Such conduct necessarily undermines the confidence that the public must retain in the profession. 107 In Hopkins,122 a nurse misappropriated a sch 8 medication (oxycodone) and attempted to conceal her actions by removing pages in the controlled drug register. The nurse also provided false and misleading information to the Nursing and Midwifery Board. The conduct was described as 'serious',123 and constituted 'a significant breach of trust and an abuse of position which is unacceptable within the profession'. It necessarily diminishes public confidence in the profession'.124 The conduct also demonstrated 'a serious lack of moral integrity'.125 The QCAT then noted that '[i]n most cases tribunals hearing similar matters have ruled that the stealing of schedule 8 drugs alone warrants a finding of professional misconduct'.126 108 In our view, such considerations arise in the context of the Referral. 109 The Respondent's conduct, in misappropriating the morphine and attempting to misappropriate the midazolam and diazepam, is very serious. An inherent aspect of the role of a health professional, such as a paramedic, employed in the context of a regional (and remote) location, is to maintain, safeguard, administer and, where necessary, dispose of the medications that are required to be kept for the safety of all personnel. In such contexts, it is therefore imperative that sch 4 and sch 8 121 Macdonald [27]. 122 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Hopkins [2025] QCAT 513 (Hopkins). 123 Hopkins [26]. 124 Hopkins [27]. 125 Hopkins [30]. 126 Hopkins [26]. -- 31 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 32 medications be carefully and diligently managed by those charged with the authority and responsibility to do so. 110 It is also relevant that the conduct occurred in connection with his duties as a paramedic. In acting as he did, the Respondent breached the inherent trust placed in him and thus failed in what is a core duty of a paramedic. It is unprofessional conduct that is, we find, substantially below that to be reasonably expected from a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience. 111 Second, the theft of the morphine, a sch 8 medication under the Poisons Standard, for the purpose of supplying it to another, adds to the gravity of the Respondent's conduct. The very reason morphine is restricted under sch 8 of the Poisons Standard, is because it is a drug of addiction and there is a community need to reduce its abuse, misuse and associated physical or psychological dependence. 112 We accept the Board's submissions, the effect of which is to emphasise that morphine should only be administered under the strict supervision of a medical practitioner or other qualified health professional. However, on his own evidence, the Respondent says he intended to supply the morphine to his friend for use which, as we have found, was inherently likely to occur other than under appropriate medical care and supervision. 113 The failure to appreciate, even in Mr Sallery's written submissions (made almost 2 years later), the inherent danger (posed to his friend) in his intended course of conduct, only compounds its seriousness. 114 We agree with the observations in Jamieson, that the theft of habit-forming drugs such as morphine, coupled here with the intention to supply it to a heroin-addicted friend for use other than under medical supervision, adds significantly to the gravity of the Respondent's conduct. Furthermore, it increases the extent of the deviation from the requisite standard reasonably expected from a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience. 115 Accordingly, we are satisfied, and we find, Mr Sallery's conduct, in intending to supply the stolen (and expired) morphine to a drug-addicted friend, for use other than under appropriate medical supervision, would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable, by paramedics of good repute and competency. -- 32 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 33 116 Third, we are also troubled by other surrounding facts. The Respondent's employment at the Mine Site was his first as a paramedic, which endured for only 9 days. ERS and the Mine Site provided him with his first opportunity to work in what he would later submit was his 'dream career'.127 117 The fact that, at the time he was confronted during the handover at the completion of his final shift on 13 May 2021, he had already stored the morphine in his toiletries bag, evinces not an unplanned one-off incident, but a deliberate, premeditated and repeated strategy to misappropriate the morphine, and then the midazolam and diazepam, from the Mine Site. The fact that in doing so, he attempted to avoid detection, only adds to the seriousness of the conduct. Accordingly, we reject Mr Sallery's written submissions to the effect that his conduct was an unplanned one-off incident. 118 By engaging in such serious conduct at the very outset of his career, it does, in our view, immediately raise for consideration the question as to whether the Respondent is, at least at this time, fit and proper to hold registration as a paramedic. 119 Fourth, the Respondent was working in a regional location in Westonia, some distance away from emergency health services. Furthermore, he was employed at the Mine Site, which, by its nature, involves dangerous work. These facts only heighten the need for the careful management of the drugs at the Mine Site, particularly sch 8 medications. 120 We are less troubled by the fact that Mr Sallery was found possessing syringes, needles and sodium chloride. These items are not subject to the same restrictions on use and access as the Medications. 121 Fifth, on the facts that we have found, the Medications had all expired. In so finding, we have rejected Mr Sallery's explanation that the midazolam and diazepam (totalling 4 ampules) found on his person (with a 5th ampule later located by police), were available for use at the Mine Site. Because we are satisfied that the Medications had all expired, this is not a case where the Respondent appropriated or sought to appropriate, medication that could still have been safely dispensed, if required, at the Mine Site, to potentially jeopardise the safety 127 Applicant's Bundle, page 97. -- 33 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 34 of personnel. It was instead medication that needed to be disposed in accordance with the Storage/Disposal Procedure. 122 Sixth, Mr Sallery's explanation, which we do not accept, that the midazolam and diazepam that were found on his person were intended to be used for legitimate purposes on patients, is also, of itself, concerning. 123 As explained, Mr Sallery was required to comply with the Mine Site's MMP,128 which includes detailed protocols for the storage of medications. The MMP provides that all drugs are to be stored securely in a cupboard, safe, drawer or suitable kit within a secured area such as a clinic room/ambulance.129 Where the ambient outside temperature is 25oC or above drug kits must be removed from ambulances/vehicles and stored in a secure air-conditioned location accessible only to 'Authorised persons'.130 Similarly, drug kits are required, always, to be stored in a locked Ambulance/clinic cupboard. Where the ambient outside temperature is 25oC or above drug kits must be removed from ambulances/vehicles and stored in a secure air-conditioned location accessible only to Authorised persons. 124 Accordingly, if Mr Sallery was storing medications, such as midazolam and diazepam, on his person, in the performance of his duties at the Mine Site, he would have been acting contrary to the requirements set out in the MMP. Such conduct would, in our view, be regarded as unsatisfactory professional performance, as it would have evinced a level of judgment, and care, with respect to the storage of medications, that is below the standard reasonably expected of a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience. 125 Seventh, we acknowledge that, at the time of the conduct, the Respondent was a very inexperienced paramedic and, on the facts, appears that he was largely completing his shifts at the Mine Site working autonomously. We also note that at, 22 years old, Mr Sallery was, and remains, a young man. 126 However, the Respondent was duly qualified through a university degree. Mr Cartwright's AHPRA statement included commentary to the effect that the disposal of medications is an inherent aspect of a university 128 Applicant's Bundle, pages 343 to 355. 129 MMP, para 4.2. 130 MMP, para 3 defines an 'Authorised person' who is 'authorised by the Medical provider to Order, Possess, Administer or Supply Medicines and Poisons in accordance with the requirements of State Legislation'. -- 34 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 35 qualification in paramedicine.131 We accept, and agree with, Mr Cartwright's broad observations in this regard. 127 In any event, we have found that the Respondent had been provided with a three-day site orientation, and additional verbal instructions from Mr Chandler, on the Storage/Disposal Procedure. Accordingly, we do not accept the Respondent's submissions, nor his evidence in his AHPRA interview that, because, in his view, he had not been properly trained, this somehow mitigates his decision to retain the Medications. As we have set out, we are satisfied that Mr Sallery was not simply 'retaining' the Medications on some mistaken belief that it was permissible to do so. Rather, he was, attempting to, without detection, misappropriate the Medications from the Mine Site. 128 Furthermore, this is not a situation where the fact that the Respondent was a young man, and a very inexperienced paramedic, may colour the appropriate characterisation of his conduct. Misappropriating morphine, and attempting to misappropriate the midazolam and diazepam, which are each scheduled medications under the Poisons Standard, and that are required to be closely regulated and managed, both at the Mine Site and in the community, fundamentally offends one of the core duties of a paramedic, no matter what level of experience. As the QCAT observed in Hopkins, such conduct is fundamentally dishonest and evinces a 'serious lack of moral integrity'. It is unprofessional conduct that is substantially below that to be reasonably expected from a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience. 129 The breaches of the Code (sections 1.1, 1.2 and 8.1) reinforce the seriousness and gravity of Mr Sallery's misconduct. The failure to promptly inform the Board of the charges against him was contrary to s 130 of the National Law. However, such failure is not at the same level of seriousness as his other impugned conduct. It is, we find, 'unprofessional conduct' under the National Law. 130 Accordingly, having regard to the totality of the Mr Sallery's conduct, our overall finding is that he engaged in 'professional misconduct' under the National Law, by reason that his conduct: (a) constitutes repeated instances of unprofessional conduct that is substantially below that to be reasonably expected of a paramedic of an equivalent level of training or experience; and 131 Applicant's Bundle, page 101. -- 35 of 36 -- [2026] WASAT 88 Page 36 (b) is inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession. 131 The Board should prepare orders that gives effect to these reasons. We will also hear from the parties in relation to programming orders to determine an appropriate sanction in the light of these reasons, as well as, if applicable, the question of costs. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. DR S WILLEY, SENIOR MEMBER 30 JULY 2026 -- 36 of 36 --