The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) has once again been required to consider the appropriate length of disqualification from registration for a psychologist. In considering the appropriate length of disqualification, in Health Ombudsman v Sarah Regina Esposo [2025] QCAT 166 (Esposo), the Tribunal considered factors as to the appropriate length of that disqualification in circumstances where there was a lengthy delay in finalising proceedings.

The Respondent, Sarah Regina Esposo, was a registered psychologist who was convicted of misconduct in relation to public office.^₁ The Respondent, whilst employed with the Department of Education as a Principal Statistical Officer, failed to declare her conflict of interest by her involvement in a company, "School Measures." It was alleged that this company was fraudulently promoted to, and secured a remunerative contract with, the Department of Education to produce content for the Department's School Opinion Survey. Although the Judge in the criminal proceedings noted that the Respondent's role in the crime was very minor, the Respondent still had knowledge of the promotion of the business and contributed promotion ideas and produced survey content. The Respondent was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, wholly suspended with an operational period of three years.

The Respondent's Application before QCAT was listed some six years after the Respondent had been charged, and some 17 months after her conviction. During this time, the Respondent's employment with the Department was terminated, and the Respondent allowed her registration as a psychologist to lapse in January 2022. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 23 May 2025.

The facts before the Tribunal were largely agreed, as was the proposed reprimand agreed between the Respondent and the Health Ombudsman. There were two issues before the Tribunal for determination:

• Whether the Respondent's conduct constituted unprofessional conduct or, more seriously, professional misconduct; and

• whether the Respondent ought to be disqualified from applying for registration as a psychologist under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) for a period of six months.

The Tribunal first considered whether the Respondent's criminal conduct should be deemed unprofessional conduct, or in the alternative, a more serious level of offending, professional misconduct. In doing so, the Tribunal emphasised that although the Respondent's role in the criminal conduct was minor in the scheme of the overall criminal conduct involved in the criminal proceedings, the Respondent's conduct was nonetheless serious.

The Tribunal focused not only on the sentence imposed by the Sentencing Judge, but also the sentencing options available to the Court at that time. The Tribunal emphasised that the sentencing Judge had characterised the matter of the Respondent's conduct as a "touch and go case" and that "as far as the sentencing judge was concerned, it would have been open for a period of actual custody, albeit even if for only a short period of time."²

Although ultimately the Respondent received a suspended sentence, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of recalling that the Respondent's conduct "not only involved criminality, it also constituted a serious breach of trust as a public servant, not only in respect of her employer, but also in respect of the taxpaying public at large".³

The Tribunal was ultimately satisfied that the Respondent's conduct ought properly be characterised as professional misconduct as it fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner.

The Tribunal referred to its overriding concern of protecting the public, which includes maintaining the good standing and reputation of a relevant profession. On this basis, the Tribunal agreed that the Respondent should be reprimanded, which would appropriately express the denunciation by the Tribunal of the Respondent's conduct.

A key question before the Tribunal was whether a period of disqualification would be unnecessarily punitive, given the extended delays in the proceedings coming before the Tribunal.

When considering this question, the Tribunal had regard to the Fleischmann principle.⁴ The principle requires that a practitioner convicted of a serious offence should not be permitted to resume practice until their sentence has been satisfactorily completed.⁵ The Judge in Fleischmann observed that:

"the rationale for the principle is not that it can serve to punish the practitioner whilst serving his sentence, but that good standing in a profession must be earned if the reputation of the profession is to be maintained."

Both the Health Ombudsman and the Respondent agreed that a period of disqualification which extended to the conclusion of the operational period of the Respondent's sentence would be excessive. The Health Ombudsman, however, sought a period of disqualification of a further six months from the date of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal considered Health Ombudsman v Brown [2019] QCAT 218, which noted that although suspension of practice due to ongoing criminal and disciplinary proceedings should not be regarded as voluntary or necessarily indicative of insight and remorse for criminal conduct, such delays do have a practical effect of preventing a practitioner from carrying out their profession for an extended period. The Tribunal emphasised that this should be a relevant consideration when deciding whether to impose a period of disqualification.

In the circumstances of Esposo, the Tribunal held the view that disqualifying the Respondent from applying for reregistration until her suspended sentence had expired would be excessively punitive for the purposes of sending a message of general deterrence. While the Tribunal endorsed the general application of the Fleischmann Principle where appropriate, the Tribunal emphasised the importance of considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case before deciding that the principle does not apply.

There are two key takeaways which arise from Esposo and serve as a timely reminder of the important considerations for the Tribunal when assessing the appropriate length of disqualification from registration for a psychologist.

Firstly, it is important, when considering the seriousness of conduct, to view the conduct on its own and in relation to the reputation of the profession and not to get weighed down in the size of the Respondent's role in a larger criminal scheme.

Secondly, although the Fleischmann Principle should always be considered, it is not always appropriate for it to be applied, lest it result in excessively punitive outcomes.

If you have any questions about professional misconduct or disqualification periods, please reach out to our Insurance team for tailored advice.

• ¹ Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 92A(1)(c).

• ² Esposo at [19].

• ³ Esposo at [20].

• ⁴ Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Fleischmann).

• ⁵ Esposo at [36]–[37].