VCAT found Mr Ramos engaged in professional misconduct but departed from the parties' agreed determination of a reprimand, instead ordering only a caution. The Tribunal held that where a practitioner has already been subject to nearly five years of suspension, over two years of restrictive conditions, criminal proceedings ultimately dismissed, and devastating media coverage over an eight-year delay, specific and general deterrence are sufficiently served without a reprimand. A caution, which does not appear on the public register unlike a reprimand, may be appropriate even for professional misconduct where the cumulative effect of interim sanctions and delay would render a reprimand disproportionate. The case confirms that tribunals retain an independent duty to determine appropriate sanctions and may depart from agreed proposals where the agreed sanction is not the most appropriate outcome.
The full text is available to signed-in members.