Just under three years later, in February 2020, the technician crashed into a stationary Mazda, fleeing while a member of the public followed her. Police then found her and deemed she showed signs of intoxication - but she refused to provide a blood sample, despite later admitting she had consumed between two and six bottles of beer.
In November of that year, she was convicted for refusing to provide a blood sample to police.
Again, in March 2021, she re-registered for a practicing certificate and declared she had no criminal convictions over the previous 12 months - a lie.
The council later obtained copies of her criminal record, showing the 2016 and 2020 convictions. Charges were laid by the professional conduct committee (PCC) before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
The woman told PCC investigators that at the time of the 2016 offence, she was in an abusive relationship “which caused her great anguish”.
She also told the PCC she was under the impression only convictions with maximum sentences of 10 years imprisonment or above had to be declared.
She later said she chose not to declare the 2020 conviction out of “pure fear of losing my registration and my livelihood”.
“I know that this was a stupid decision. At the time I was struggling with extreme stress and depression. I have made mistakes but I’m not a bad person nor did my situation affect my clinical practice.”
There was no evidence to prove her claims that she had seen a psychologist and attended counselling, nor attended a community alcohol and drugs course, tribunal chairwoman Maria Dew wrote in her determination.
The tribunal heard the technician was first registered in 2013, when she declared a drink driving conviction in 2011, and another for unlawfully being in an enclosed yard in 2002. She wrote a letter expressing remorse, and her registration was approved.
The PCC laid two charges and alleged the technician’s conduct reflected her fitness to practice.
“Registration as a health practitioner is a privilege and brings with it obligations to comply with the standards expected of those who practise as registered health practitioners,” the decision said.
“It is conduct which clearly brings discredit to the profession and reflects adversely on the practitioner’s fitness to practice.”
The practitioner accepted that her convictions brought discredit to the profession and that her actions in failing to declare them amounted to professional misconduct.
The PCC sought a penalty of six months suspension, censure, conditions to her employment and an order for costs.
The technician’s lawyer submitted suspension would be “disastrous” for the woman, and risks could be managed by other conditions imposed by the tribunal.
The tribunal instead ordered a censure and a two-year period where the technician is required to follow directions from the Medical Sciences Council as to her addiction issues.
“This penalty serves as a final opportunity for the practitioner. She must address her health and addictions issues.”
She was also ordered to pay $5370 in costs.
