The appeal was dismissed and the original decision suspending the appellant cardiologist's registration was confirmed, with costs reserved. The Tribunal held that the presumption of innocence does not preclude the exercise of immediate action powers under s 156 of the National Law where a practitioner faces serious criminal charges (here, 20 offences including sexual offences against former employees), as the jurisdiction is protective rather than disciplinary and does not require findings of guilt. The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) was held not to constrain the National Law's operation because the Tribunal is excluded from the definition of 'public authority' under s 40, and the National Law's self-contained interpretive framework means s 30 of the HR Act does not require the National Law to be construed compatibly with human rights where inconsistent with its purpose. Arguments not raised at first instance, including reliance on the HR Act and the principle of legality, were held to be impermissible on appeal absent exceptional circumstances, particularly where they could have been met by evidence below.
The full text is available to signed-in members.