Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman v Peroumal [2026] QCAT 283

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman v Peroumal [2026] QCAT 283 PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN (Applicant) v MICHELE LORNA PAULINE PEROUMAL (Respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: OCR140-25 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters DELIVERED ON: 5 August 2026 HEARING DATE: 7 July 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Dr R W Haddrick, Supplementary Member Assisted by: Ms R Bensted Mr J McNab Ms S Nowlan ORDERS: IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT: Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (‘HO Act’), the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the Respondent is reprimanded. Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the decision of the Health Ombudsman, dated 8 August 2023, to take immediate registration action and suspend the Respondent’s registration is set aside. Pursuant to s 107(3)(e) of the HO Act, the Respondent’s registration is cancelled. Pursuant to s 107(4)(aa) of the HO Act, the Respondent is restricted from applying to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a reinstatement order for twelve months from the date of this order. -- 1 of 8 -- 2 Pursuant to s 107(3)(b)(iii) of the HO Act, the Respondent is prohibited from being a National Disability Insurance Scheme provider, or providing National Disability Insurance Scheme services (as a principal, agent, employee or volunteer) to any member of the public for twelve months from the date of this order. Pursuant to s 107(4)(b) of the HO Act, the Respondent is prohibited from providing any health service until she obtains registration as a registered health practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), or a corresponding law of a State or Territory of Australia. Each party is to bear their own costs to the proceeding. CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the registrant has engaged in stealing and fraud – where the registrant engaged in professional misconduct – the professional misconduct occurred during an earlier disciplinary process Craig v Medical Board of South Australia (2011) 79 SASR 545 Health Ombudsman v Serone [2026] QCAT 51 Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391 Criminal Code (Qld), 433, s 408C Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 194A APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: M Price, solicitor for the Health Ombudsman Respondent: The Respondent was self-represented -- 2 of 8 -- 3 REASONS FOR DECISION Background [1] This is a referral to the Tribunal under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (the ‘HO Act’), for disciplinary action to be taken against the Respondent. The respondent is a registered nurse, whose registration has been suspended. [2] This proceeding was heard by a supplementary member of the Tribunal. This decision is issued pursuant to s 194A of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). [3] The facts of this referral are agreed. Taken from the agreed statement of facts, the Respondent: (a) is 49 years old, having been born on 30 December 1975; (b) was 46 years old at the time of the commission of her criminal offences. She was 47 years old when she was convicted and sentenced (those matters being the subject of the subsequent criminal conduct); (c) in 2014 was awarded a Bachelor of Nursing by the University of Southern Queensland. (d) is registered as a registered nurse pursuant to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (the ‘National Law’); (e) was first registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (‘the Board’) on 18 March 2014. Her registration is currently suspended; and (f) was, in her practice, at all times, subject to the codes and ethics that govern the behaviour of nurses, including the Code of Conduct (‘the Code’) published and promulgated by the Board. Previous criminal conviction and disciplinary action [4] The Respondent has previously been the subject of a finding and orders by the Tribunal. The complainant in that case was an 87-year-old resident of a Blue Care aged care facility (‘the Facility’). [5] On 26 June 2020, the Respondent was working at the Facility. She entered the complainant’s room, proceeded to her handbag, opened her wallet, and removed a Visa debit card. The Respondent left the Facility at the completion of her shift in possession of the Visa debit card. Over a period of just three hours on the same day, the Respondent used the card to complete a number of transactions at various organisations. The total sum defrauded, as a result of the use of the Visa card on nine occasions, amounted to $589.73. [6] The Respondent was identified by CCTV footage. She declined to participate in a record of interview. [7] On 24 November 2020, in the Pine Rivers Magistrates Court, the Respondent pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, one count of stealing, and nine counts of fraud. She was ordered to complete 40 hours of community service and to pay restitution in the -- 3 of 8 -- 4 amount of $589.73. The Magistrate did not record a conviction. In the oral hearing of that criminal matter the Respondent also submitted to the Tribunal that a written letter of remorse was provided by the Respondent’s lawyer to the complainant in that matter. [8] Prior to this matter being heard in the Magistrates Court, on 23 September 2020 the Health Ombudsman took immediate registration action, imposing conditions on the Respondent’s registration as a nurse prohibiting her from practicing in any role requiring direct or indirect clinical patient contact. The Health Ombudsman removed those conditions approximately four and a half months later, on 5 February 2021. [9] Subsequently, on 10 March 2022, this Tribunal found that the Respondent’s conduct constituted professional misconduct within the meaning in s 5 of the National Law. The Tribunal reprimanded the Respondent, imposed conditions on her registration, and ordered that each party bear their own costs of that proceeding. Those conditions included that, upon her return to practice, the Respondent must undertake and successfully complete an educational program on ethics, including a reflective practice report. [10] The Respondent has not provided evidence to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (‘AHPRA’) of completing an ethics education program and reflective practice report. Subsequent criminal conduct [11] On 18 May 2023, the Queensland Police Service notified the Office of the Health Ombudsman that the Respondent had been charged with stealing, receiving tainted property, fraud and burglary. [12] On 8 August 2023, the Health Ombudsman decided to take immediate registration action and suspended the Respondent’s registration as a nurse. [13] On 5 December 2023, the Respondent was convicted of one charge of receiving tainted property, and one charge of fraud. The Respondent pleaded guilty to, was convicted of, and sentenced in respect of, one count of receiving tainted property, in contravention of s 433(1) of Sch 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (‘Criminal Code’), and one count of fraud, in contravention of s 408C(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. The stealing charge was dismissed. [14] The facts of this subsequent offending are as follows: (a) in 2022, Mr Sean Kays was the owner of two Gold Stadium Memberships for Suncorp Stadium, worth a total of $4,390; (b) Mr Kays had formerly rented a post office box but had relinquished it. The Respondent subsequently rented that post office box; (c) between 4 and 11 February 2022, two Suncorp Stadium membership packages (including season tickets) were sent to Mr Kays at his former post office box address. He did not receive these packages; (d) on 1 April 2022, Mr Kays contacted Suncorp Stadium and advised them that he had not received his tickets. When advised of the delivery address, Mr Kays confirmed that he no longer had rights to that post office box; -- 4 of 8 -- 5 (e) on 6 April 2022, Suncorp Stadium cancelled the barcodes of the original membership packages and arranged for new packs to be sent to Mr Kays; (f) at some point, the Respondent came into possession of the original membership packages. This constituted charge 2, being the receiving tainted property charge; (g) on or before 6 April 2022, the Respondent advertised the two Suncorp membership season tickets for sale on Facebook Marketplace; (h) on 6 April 2022, Mr John Kolanowski saw this advertisement. He messaged the Respondent, and was told the price for the two tickets was $1,500. The Respondent and Mr Kolanowski subsequently discussed the offer; (i) on 7 April 2022, the Respondent attended Mr Kolanowski’s home with the two membership packs. They negotiated a sale price of $1,200. The Respondent explained that the packages were unwanted gifts; (j) the Respondent sent a text message to Mr Kolanowski negotiating the transfer of funds. She had initially requested cash but eventually agreed to the transfer of money into her bank account. She provided Mr Kolanowski with her bank account details; (k) the Respondent handed the boxes to Mr Kolanowski. Each box contained a membership ticket, a lanyard, a coffee mug, a cap, a notebook and a Suncorp introduction letter. Mr Kolanowski transferred the sum of $1,200 to the Respondent’s bank account. This constituted charge 3, being the fraud charge; (l) Mr Kays never authorised the sale of these tickets; (m) the next day, before he went to the football game, Mr Kolanowski contacted Suncorp Stadium to confirm the legitimacy of his tickets. He was told that the tickets had been cancelled and was advised to contact the police; and (n) on 18 April 2022, the matter was reported to police. Police identified the Respondent through her mobile telephone number and her bank account details. [15] As a consequence of this: (a) on 5 September 2022, a warrant issued for the Respondent’s arrest; (b) on 16 May 2023, police arrested and charged the Respondent. She declined to be interviewed. The Respondent spent 44 days in pre-sentence custody; (c) on 5 December 2023, the Respondent appeared in the Magistrates Court of Queensland, at Brisbane, and pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, one count of receiving tainted property and one count of fraud; and (d) Deputy Chief Magistrate Gett sentenced the Respondent to 40 hours community service, to be performed within six months, and ordered that she pay $1,200 restitution within 28 days. Convictions were also recorded. -- 5 of 8 -- 6 Characterisation of Respondent’s conduct [16] Professional misconduct is defined under the National Law. Section 5 provides the following definition: “professional misconduct”, of a registered health practitioner, includes-- (a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that 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 (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 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. [17] Both the Applicant and the Respondent submitted that the conduct of the Respondent – that is her subsequent criminal conduct, described supra – constitutes professional misconduct. This Tribunal agrees; and makes a finding (pursuant to (c) above) that the Respondent has behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct, accordingly. Sanction [18] This Tribunal is asked to sanction the Respondent. The purpose of any sanction ordered by the Tribunal is to protect the public, as well as to maintain and advance the standing and reputation of the particular professional discipline that the registered health practitioner is a member of. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is not to punish; it is not punitive in character.1 The offending conduct of the Respondent has already been punished by the Magistrates Court of Queensland. [19] As her Honour Judge Firth observed in Health Ombudsman v Serone,2 the considerations of the Tribunal on a disciplinary referral are well-established, and include: (a) preventing practitioners who are unfit to practice from practising; (b) ensuring the practitioner comprehends the seriousness of their conduct; (c) deterring the practitioner or others who might be minded to act in a similar way from future departure from appropriate or acceptable standards; and (d) imposing restrictions on the practitioner’s right to practice to ensure the public is protected. 1 Health Ombudsman v Serone [2026] QCAT 51 at [25]. 2 [2026] QCAT 51; citing Craig v Medical Board of South Australia (2011) 79 SASR 545 at 553-555. -- 6 of 8 -- 7 [20] The process of determining an appropriate sanction involves this Tribunal undertaking a risk assessment of the practitioner, and, consequently, an assessment of the practitioner’s level of insight is a relevant consideration in that risk assessment.3 [21] With this in mind, this Tribunal notes the following features: (a) the Respondent has engaged in repetitious acts of dishonesty; (b) the Respondent had, as of the date of the hearing of this matter (7 July 2026) been suspended for approximately two years and 11 months, since 8 August 2023. As of the date of this decision, the Respondent will have been suspended for three years in duration; (c) the subsequent criminal conduct, that is the criminal conduct constituted by the acts of fraud against Mr Kolanowski, occurred whilst the disciplinary process was occurring against the Respondent in respect of her earlier conduct – that is the theft of the Visa debit card from a patient, and the misuse of it; and (d) it appears that the Respondent has a serious lack of insight as to the wrongness of her dishonest conduct, and she has sought to minimalize the nature of the criminal conduct that she engaged in.4 Specifically, the Respondent’s assertion that the criminal case against her was ‘a misunderstanding case of steal and fraud’ [sic], and her attempt to disassociate herself from her own criminal conduct when she observed that she was ‘arrested and locked away like a criminal’ (when, of course, that is exactly what she was). [22] It is the view of the Tribunal that the Respondent has not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation in order to demonstrate that she is of good character to remain registered as a health practitioner. [23] It is the conclusion of this Tribunal that given the Respondent’s conduct, it is necessary for this Tribunal to order that the Respondent’s registration be cancelled. The Tribunal is also of the view that there be a twelve-month period before the Respondent is eligible to apply for re-registration. [24] Whilst not specifically advanced by the parties, it is also the view of the Tribunal that the Respondent should be prohibited from engaging in conduct as a provider of services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the ‘NDIS’) for the duration of her preclusion period. The Tribunal has formed the view that the Respondent’s dishonest conduct means that she is a risk to the safety of other persons who are receiving social welfare benefits in the form of NDIS services, which, are otherwise not regulated. Therefore, the Tribunal will order that the Respondent is prohibited from being an NDIS provider, or providing NDIS services (as a principal, agent, employee or volunteer) to any member of the public until the expiry of the twelve- month period that commences on the date of this decision. 3 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391 at [71], citing Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163 at [142]. 4 Applicant’s outline of submissions in reply (dated 17 April 2026), paragraphs 10 to 13 inclusive. -- 7 of 8 -- 8 [25] As a consequence of the Tribunal’s decision to cancel the Respondent’s registration, consequential orders for the setting aside of the Respondent’s suspension are required and will be made. [26] The Tribunal is also of the view that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to publicly reprimand the Respondent. Orders of the Tribunal [27] The Tribunal orders that: 1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the HO Act, the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct; 2. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the Respondent is reprimanded; 3. Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the decision of the Health Ombudsman, dated 8 August 2023, to take immediate registration action and suspend the Respondent’s registration is set aside; 4. Pursuant to s 107(3)(e) of the HO Act, the Respondent’s registration is cancelled; 5. Pursuant to s 107(4)(aa) of the HO Act, the Respondent is restricted from applying to QCAT for a reinstatement order for twelve months from the date of this order; 6. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b)(iii) of the HO Act, the Respondent is prohibited from being a National Disability Insurance Scheme provider, or providing National Disability Insurance Scheme services (as a principal, agent, employee or volunteer) to any member of the public for twelve months from the date of this order; 7. Pursuant to s 107(4)(b) of the HO Act, the Respondent is prohibited from providing any health service until she obtains registration as a registered health practitioner under the National Law, or a corresponding law of a State or Territory of Australia; and 8. Each party is to bear their own costs to the proceeding. -- 8 of 8 --