Guilty of professional misconduct but no risk to the public

The Tribunal held that the doctor did not pose a risk to the public in the face of an admission by the doctor that his conduct was sufficiently serious enough to amount to a finding of professional misconduct.

The background

On 12 December 2025, the Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission) sought orders in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) against medical practitioner, Dr Mazyar Irani (the Practitioner). The Commission alleged that the Practitioner was guilty of professional misconduct and sought a three-to-six-month suspension of his registration.

The Commission relied on three previous complaints involving incidents of inappropriate treatment and prescribing to three of the Practitioner's close family members (patients A, B and C).

• Patient A: The Practitioner prescribed Schedule 4D and Schedule 8 medications to patient A for a period of two years between 2021 and 2023. It was alleged that he failed to perform face-to-face consultations, did not maintain required records and prescribed without a proper authority.
• Patient B: The Practitioner prescribed Schedule 4 medications to patient B between 2022 and early 2023 and failed to maintain required records.
• Patient C: The Practitioner falsified and issued medical certificates for patient C on three separate occasions, inaccurately stating that patient C had been physically examined.

The Practitioner admitted to the facts and allegations set out in the complaints, including that his conduct constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct and was sufficiently serious enough to amount to a finding of professional misconduct. However, the Practitioner opposed the orders being sought by the Commission and alternatively, sought an order that he receive a reprimand pursuant to section 149A(1)(a) of the National Law.

In issue

• In circumstances where the Practitioner admitted to a finding of professional misconduct, the issue for determination turned to the making of appropriate protective orders.
• In reaching their determination, the Tribunal was required to consider the need for orders which act as a general deterrent to members of the medical profession, and which uphold public confidence in both the profession and the Tribunal’s oversight.

Considerations

Whilst the Tribunal is empowered under the National Law to impose a broad range of penalties, it must ensure that the basis upon which orders are made is not punitive in nature.

Counsel for the Practitioner reminded the Tribunal that when determining appropriate protective orders, the paramount consideration is ‘the health and safety of the public’.¹ It was submitted that just because the power to suspend a practitioner’s registration has been enlivened, does not mean that the power must be exercised.

Of significance in this matter, the Practitioners’ offending conduct occurred almost three years prior and despite ample opportunity to reoffend, the Practitioner instead showed genuine remorse and insight into his actions and had taken active steps (including advancing his academic qualifications) to improve his practice. Over the course of the two-day hearing, the Tribunal went on to consider the following mitigating factors:

• The Practitioner expressed genuine remorse and contrition for his conduct.
• The Practitioner is unlikely to reoffend.
• The Practitioner’s conduct did not involve risk to the health and safety ‘of the public'.
• The Practitioner had not previously, in 17 years of medical practice in Australia, been subject to disciplinary proceedings.
• Following the offending conduct, the Practitioner was suspended from his employment for a period of six months.
• Evidence of the Practitioners colleagues supported a finding that the conduct was ‘out of character on a personal and professional level’ and that he had suffered emotionally as a result.
• In August 2025 the Practitioner was accepted into the Fellowship training program with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, and is currently working as a first-year accredited registrar.
• Should the Practitioner receive a suspension on his registration, there is a likelihood that he would be withdrawn from the training program.

The decision

The Tribunal concluded that suspension of the Practitioner’s registration was not necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, a point which was fairly conceded by Counsel for the Commission. However, and in the alternative, the Commission submitted that anything short of a suspension would inadequately address the need for general deterrence and would fail to uphold public confidence in the administration of the National Law.

Consideration then turned to the suitability of a ‘reprimand’ and its adequacy in addressing these issues. Counsel for the Practitioner referred to previous authorities which confirmed that a reprimand is not merely a trivial penalty, but contains serious adverse implications for a professional and acts as both a direct and indirect deterrent.² It was submitted that where the Practitioner held an otherwise unblemished professional record, and considerable academic accomplishments, a reprimand would be a significant and unnecessary blot on his reputation.

The Tribunal expressed concern that a reprimand, without more, may inadequately signify to other practitioners their disapproval of the Practitioner’s offending conduct. To maintain public confidence, the Tribunal was persuaded to include a $20,000 fine, the equivalent of 118 penalty units, alongside the reprimand.

The Tribunal ordered that the Practitioner is:

• guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct
• guilty of professional misconduct
• to be reprimanded
• fined the sum of $20,000, and
• to pay the Commissions’ costs of the proceedings.

The importance of referees in appropriate cases

As an aside, this case was one where evidence provided by referees seems to have been persuasive apart from evidence as to the Practitioner’s character provided by non-medical witnesses. This was given little weight because, as the Tribunal observed, 'medical practitioners are expected to be persons of good character and repute.'

With regard to references provided by medical practitioners, the following doctors were involved.

The Practitioner’s wife, a doctor and Staff Specialist at Westmead Hospital, provided a reference for the Practitioner. Whilst Counsel for the Practitioner acknowledged that her reference could not be entirely impartial or dispassionate, the Tribunal observed that her reference remained balanced and did not seek to excuse the Practitioner’s behaviour. The Tribunal saw the most significant statement to be:

The Head of the Radiology Department at St George Hospital also provided a reference which the Tribunal gave ‘substantial weight’. Amongst other things, he stated that:

A reference was also provided by the Staff Specialist Radiologist at Westmead Hospital who supervised the Practitioner for a six-month period. He continued to stay in contact with the Practitioner because he had an interest in his career development. He said, amongst other things, that:

Key takeaways

• Determining appropriate protection orders is considered on a case-by-case basis with the Tribunal’s paramount consideration being promotion of the health and safety of the public.
• Whether a suspension is necessary will be balanced against the need to eliminate a risk to public health and safety alongside the proportionality of potential career consequences and mitigating factors.
• A reprimand is not a trivial punishment but a serious sanction, serving both as a deterrent and public denunciation of misconduct with severe consequences for the practitioner.
• A reprimand alone may be insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and public disapproval; in which case a substantial fine may be coupled with the reprimand to ensure general deterrence and public confidence.

Health Care Complaints Commission v Irani [2026] NSWCATOD 5

¹ Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2013 (NSW) s 3, 3A.
² Counsel for the Practitioner relying on the case of NSW Bar Association v Meakes [2026] NSWCA 340.