VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
REVIEW AND REGULATION LIST	
vcat reference No. Z961/2023	
CATCHWORDS	
Review and Regulation List – Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009, sections 196(1) and 196(2) – allegation of professional misconduct arising from assault – findings of professional misconduct – determinations imposed – reprimand, disqualification for four months. 	
APPLICANT	Osteopathy Board of Australia	
RESPONDENT	Christian Georgopoulos	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne via videoconference	
BEFORE	Member S. Cohen
Member E. O’Brien
Member D. Culcasi	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	14 May 2025	
DATE OF ORDER	11 June 2025	
CITATION	Osteopathy Board of Australia v Georgopoulos (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 510	
Orders
1	Having found Christian Georgopoulos engaged in professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law) VCAT orders:
(a)	Under section 196(2)(a) of the National Law, Mr Georgopoulos is reprimanded.
(b)	Under section 196(2)(b) of the National Law, Mr Georgopoulos is disqualified from applying for registration as an osteopath for a period of four months from the date of these Orders.
2	VCAT directs, pursuant to section 80(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) that the person assaulted by Mr Georgopoulos is to be known as ZUR. 

S Cohen
Presiding 
Member	E O’Brien
Health Practitioner Member	D Culcasi
Health Practitioner Member	

APPEARANCES:		
For applicant	J Stoller, Counsel	
For respondent	No appearance	

Reasons
Referral and summary
1	On 8 November 2023, the Osteopathy Board of Australia (Board) referred a matter concerning Christian Georgopoulos to VCAT.
2	The referral arises from events on 13 November 2021, when Mr Georgopoulos, who was at the time a registered osteopath, with his father and brother, attended the home of the family of ZUR.  A violent physical altercation occurred.  Mr Georgopoulos was subsequently charged with six offences, including charges of unlawful assault, assault in company and intentionally cause injury.  
3	The Board commenced an investigation into the matter in December 2021, following a confidential notification.  
4	An Immediate Action Committee of the Board suspended Mr Georgopoulos’ registration on 28 January 2022.  Mr Georgopoulos applied to VCAT for a review of this decision, and this suspension was stayed by VCAT on 22 June 2022. 
5	The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria heard the criminal charges against Mr Georgopoulos in July 2022.  The charges were dealt with by way of a Diversion Plan with no criminal convictions being recorded. 
6	Mr Georgopoulos’ registration as an osteopath lapsed on 3 January 2023 and has not been renewed since.
7	On 23 August 2023, the Board determined to refer the matter to VCAT as it had formed the view that Mr Georgopoulos had engaged in professional misconduct.  The Board alleged Mr Georgopoulos engaged in professional misconduct:
(a)	in physically attacking, with his father and brother, ZUR, intentionally or recklessly causing injury;
(b)	in entering ZUR’s house without authority and chasing ZUR’s son for several metres, causing the son to apprehend violence; and
(c)	by causing false and misleading information to be provided to the Board in his submissions regarding proposed immediate action.
8	VCAT heard the matter on 14 May 2025 by way of videoconference/Zoom.  James Stoller of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Board.  Mr Georgopoulos did not attend the hearing, nor did a legal or other representative attend on his behalf.  
9	VCAT found the allegations concerning Mr Georgopoulos’ actions toward ZUR and his son proved, and that these matters are properly characterised as professional misconduct.  The allegation that Mr Georgopoulos caused false and misleading information to be provided to the Board was not proved. 
10	VCAT has made orders reprimanding Mr Georgopoulos and disqualifying him from applying for registration for a period of four months. 
Preliminary matter – anonymisation order
11	On the application of the Board and given the sensitive nature of aspects of this proceeding, in particular as concerns the persons assaulted and their family, it is neither appropriate nor necessary that these persons are identified.  
12	VCAT therefore directs, pursuant to section 80(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998 (Vic) (VCAT Act), that the primary person assaulted by Mr Georgopoulos is to be known as ZUR.  The names of other members of ZUR’s family are also anonymised. 
13	VCAT has previously ordered under section 146(4)(b) of the VCAT Act that no person other than a party or a representative of a party can inspect the file in this proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.
Mr Georgopoulos’ non-attendance
14	Mr Georgopoulos did not attend the hearing.  Mr Georgopoulos advised VCAT by letter dated 6 August 2024:
In circumstances where the previous suspension of my registration (until it was stayed by the Tribunal) caused me to lose my practice and take up alternative employment, I am not in a position to take part in these proceedings. 
15	VCAT has notified Mr Georgopoulos of the date and mode of hearing by Order dated 28 October 2024, which was sent by email to Mr Georgopoulos’ email address.  This Order was confirmed by further Order of VCAT on 17 March 2025, a copy of which was emailed to Mr Georgopoulos.  VCAT also provided details for the Zoom hearing (such as a hyperlink to the hearing and instructions on how to participate) to Mr Georgopoulos, including by email on the morning of the hearing. 
16	The Board has sent to VCAT an affidavit evidencing that Mr Georgopoulos has been served with a copy of all VCAT Orders, the Tribunal Book and the Board’s written submissions.
17	Having regard to the above matters, we were satisfied Mr Georgopoulos had been given notice of the hearing and had been served with all relevant documents.  Accordingly, we were satisfied it was open and appropriate for the hearing to proceed in Mr Georgopoulos’ absence. 
18	As a consequence of Mr Georgopoulos’ failure to attend the hearing, VCAT has been limited in its assessment of certain factors relevant to our decision. 
Factual background
19	On 13 November 2021, Mr Georgopoulos, his father and one of his brothers attended the home of ZUR without invitation.
20	The background to this attendance was that the younger brother of Mr Georgopoulos was in dispute with one of ZUR’s sons, and an incident had occurred the evening before.  
21	Mr Georgopoulos, in his police interview, says he was contacted by his father at about 4:00pm with a plan to attend ZUR’s home and speak to ZUR and his son.
22	At ZUR’s home, an angry confrontation occurred. Mr Georgopoulos and his father and brother demanded ZUR get his son.  When ZUR told them to leave the property, he was violently assaulted by Mr Georgopoulos, his father and brother.  From the various police statements and other evidence provided:
(a)	ZUR hit his head on a timber post after being thrown forwards and punched;
(b)	ZUR was dragged off the timber porch and onto the concrete;
(c)	ZUR was punched and kicked to the head, back, ribs and stomach; and
(d)	ZUR’s jumper was pulled over his head and down his arms, and it was being pulled on such that he could not get up.
23	The assault lasted at least 25 to 30 seconds.  Mr Georgopoulos admitted, in his police interview, to striking ZUR with a closed fist between three and five times.  
24	ZUR suffered injuries including a cut to his head, bruising on his face, neck and hand, and soreness on his ribs.
25	During the assault, Mr Georgopoulos sighted ZUR’s 13-year-old son (not the son Mr Georgopoulos and his family wished to speak to) at the entrance to ZUR’s home.  Mr Georgopoulos ran towards him, chasing him into the home, and following several metres into the home, only stopping when he was aware this was not the son he wished to speak to.
26	During the assault, a number of calls were made to 000 by ZUR’s family members.  
Criminal proceedings
27	Late in the evening of 13 November 2021 Mr Georgopoulos attended Shepparton Police Station and was interviewed by police.  Mr Georgopoulos made some admissions and was charged with assaulting ZUR, assaulting ZUR in company and without lawful excuse entering ZUR’s home.  
28	On 18 February 2022, Mr Georgopoulos was additionally charged with intentionally causing injury to ZUR, recklessly causing injury to ZUR and unlawfully assaulting ZUR’s 13-year-old son.  
29	The six charges against Mr Georgopoulos were heard by the Magistrates’ Court on 3 July 2022, and he was offered and accepted a Diversion Program.  The Diversion Plan signed by Mr Georgopoulos includes the following matters:
(a)	the six offences Mr Georgopoulos was charged with;
(b)	a statement ‘I acknowledge responsibility for the offence(s)’; and
(c)	conditions that Mr Georgopoulos agrees to comply with:
i.	to write a letter of gratitude/apology to the police informant;
ii.	to donate $500 to the Royal Children’s Hospital; and
iii.	to be of good behaviour for the period of the plan (until 3 July 2023).
30	VCAT understands that this program has been completed, and as a consequence the charges have been withdrawn.
Allegations
31	Attached to these reasons are the Notice of Allegations provided with the Board’s referral (Attachment A).  In brief, those allegations are:
(a)	Allegation 1: Mr Georgopoulos engaged in professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct in that, on 13 November 2021, he with two family members physically attacked ZUR at ZUR’s private residence, intentionally or recklessly causing injury to ZUR.
(b)	Allegation 2: Mr Georgopoulos engaged in professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct in that, on 13 November 2021, he entered ZUR’s residence without authority and chased ZUR’s son for several metres, causing ZUR’s son to apprehend violence.
(c)	Allegation 3: Mr Georgopoulos engaged in professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct in that, on 27 January 2022, he caused false and/or misleading information to be provided to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) and the Board in his submissions regarding proposed immediate action. 
32	VCAT understands Mr Georgopoulos admits some, but not all of the matters outlined in the allegations.  
33	The reason for this is that Mr Georgopoulos wrote to VCAT on 6 August 2024 stating that the findings in this matter should not go beyond matters specific to him.  He attached a “Proposed Agreed Statement of Facts” and advised that he admitted to the conduct outlined in that statement.  From a review of that statement, VCAT understands the following facts are not agreed:
(a)	That during the physical altercation, one or more of Mr Georgopoulos, his father and brother: 
i.	thrusted ZUR head-first against a wooden pillar on the veranda;
ii.	threw ZUR head-first into the concrete driveway;
iii.	pulled ZUR's jumper over his head, which prevented him from being able to defend himself; and
iv.	punched and kicked ZUR repeatedly, for a period of between 25 and 30 seconds, including in his side and organ area.
These matters are in the particulars of allegation 1 at paragraph (v). 
(b)	At the time of hitting ZUR with a closed fist, Mr Georgopoulos knew that the blows he inflicted had the potential to cause injury to ZUR.  These matters are in the particulars of allegation 1 at paragraph (vii).
34	Mr Georgopoulos does not admit allegation 3 in its entirety. 
Findings as to the conduct the subject of the allegations
35	VCAT’s first task is to make findings of fact as to the matters alleged.
36	VCAT has considered all of the evidence in the Tribunal Book, the video evidence of Mr Georgopoulos’ police interview, and audio evidence of 000 calls made by ZUR’s family.  We have also considered the written and oral submissions made by the Board.
37	Even where it appears that the parties agree that events have occurred, we have considered the evidence to determine the facts.
Burden and standard of proof
38	The Board carries the burden of proof as it has referred Mr Georgopoulos to VCAT.  
39	The standard of proof we have applied in reaching our decision is that we must reach a comfortable degree of satisfaction in accordance with the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw that the facts are established.  That is, findings of fact must be proved to the reasonable satisfaction of VCAT having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding.  A comfortable level of satisfaction is required. 
Allegation 1 – assault on ZUR
40	VCAT is comfortably satisfied that the entirety of allegation 1, as recorded at paragraphs (i)-(x) of the particulars provided by the Board, is proved.  
41	In reaching this conclusion, we have had regard both to the admissions of Mr Georgopoulos in his police interview, and also the statements to police made by ZUR and his family.
42	As regards to the matters outlined in paragraph (v), we have reviewed the statements of ZUR and his family at Part C of the Tribunal Book.  Mr Stoller also took us to the relevant parts of these statements that provide clear and consistent evidence as to ZUR’s head being thrust against a pillar, ZUR being pushed onto the concrete driveway, ZUR’s jumper being pulled over his head and ZUR being punched and kicked by Mr Georgopoulos, his father or brother.  This includes:
(a)	the statement of ZUR at paragraphs 11-13;
(b)	the statement of ZUR’s son at paragraph 13; and
(c)	the statement of ZUR’s wife at pages 2-3.
43	We also note that Mr Georgopoulos, in signing the Diversion Plan document, acknowledged responsibility for offences that included Assault in Company.  
44	We do not agree that our findings should not include these matters, and they reflect the serious nature of the collective assault by Mr Georgopoulos and his family members on ZUR.
45	As regards to allegation 1(vii), Mr Georgopoulos, in his interview with police, acknowledges the possibility or potential of his punches upon ZUR to cause injury.  We also note that ZUR complained about soreness to his ribs to a medical practitioner on 16 November 2021, following the assault.  It is, in our view, inherently likely that a registered osteopath would be aware that punching ZUR three to five times in the left rib-cage area had the potential to cause injury to ZUR.  
Allegation 2 – assault on ZUR’s son
46	VCAT is comfortably satisfied that the entirety of allegation 2, as recorded at paragraphs (i)-(x) of the particulars provided by the Board, is proved.  
47	In reaching this conclusion, we have had regard to:
(a)	the admissions of Mr Georgopoulos in his police interview, in particular in his answer to question 43:
I've just chased him out of natural instinct and, again, like as I chased this kid literally five metres, "I'm not …, I'm not …", he was saying and that's when I just stopped and I went back outside …
(b)	statements to police made by ZUR and his family (see for example, the statement of ZUR’s son at paragraph 14-15); and
(c)	the recording of the 000 call made by ZUR’s son at the time of the incident.
48	In this respect, we understand the particulars are not contested by Mr Georgopoulos.  
Allegation 3 – providing false and misleading information
49	Allegation 3 is that Mr Georgopoulos caused false and/or misleading information to be provided to Ahpra and/or the Board in his submissions regarding the Board's proposed immediate action in January 2022.
50	The Board states that on 27 January 2022, Moray & Agnew (a law firm) sent a letter to Ahpra, enclosing written submissions on Mr Georgopoulos' behalf.  The submissions stated that, in relation the physical altercation with ZUR, Mr Georgopoulos had ‘slapped ZUR with an open palm on his left lower ribs, four times, to try and extricate Mr Georgopoulos' father from ZUR’s hold, as ZUR was holding Dr Georgopoulos' father in a headlock’.
51	The Board alleges this statement is false and/or misleading, in that, during the physical altercation:
(a)	Mr Georgopoulos hit ZUR a number of times with a closed fist;
(b)	ZUR did not put Mr Georgopoulos’ father in a headlock; and/or
(c)	Mr Georgopoulos could not clearly see his father whilst engaging in the altercation.
52	The Board convened and heard oral submissions (via videoconference) from legal representatives on behalf of Mr Georgopoulos on 28 January 2022.  VCAT was advised there is no recording of those submissions.  There is evidence that Mr Georgopoulos attended this meeting.  The Board’s record of the meeting includes:
That Mr Georgopoulos does not make admissions to the allegations in the notification and that he only admits to conduct that is substantially less (in seriousness) and is specified in his written submissions. He denies that he grabbed or threw anyone, or that he threw anyone into a pole.
53	Mr Georgopoulos contests the basis for allegation 3.  A letter from Mr Georgopoulos’ next solicitors, Tony Hargreaves & Partners, of 13 April 2023, includes the following information about this matter:
2. False and misleading material to the Board
We have read the submission dated 27 January 2023 prepared by the previous lawyers of Dr Georgopoulos. At the time of the preparation of the submission, the brief of evidence had not been served. The brief demonstrates that the preliminary statement of the Informant was dated 17 February 2022, and the additional three charges were issued the following day on 18 February 2022. Accordingly, at the time the previous solicitors prepared the submission, they did not have access to the brief of evidence.
Dr Georgopoulos was most dissatisfied with the performance of his previous lawyers, and that is why immediately after the hearing, in which his registration was suspended, he terminated the services of his previous lawyers and retained our firm.
Dr Georgopoulos is not in a position to explain why it is his previous lawyers made the submission that they did in paragraph 8 of the submission.
Dr Georgopoulos instructs us that at no time has he sought to mislead the Board or AHPRA generally.
54	A document entitled “Respondent’s outline of argument”, dated 8 April 2024, and prepared by Tony Hargreaves & Partners, includes the following statement:
The Respondent admits that a written submission to the Board was made on his behalf by lawyers then acting for him and that the factual assertions in those submissions differed from the account given by him in his police record of interview. The Respondent does not admit that those differences support a finding that he caused false or misleading information to be provided to the Board.
55	The Board, in written submissions, says that these arguments should not be accepted because:
(a)	The Tribunal is entitled to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the submissions made on behalf of the respondent were based on his instructions;
(b)	The respondent did not seek to correct the position set out in his written submission at the IA hearing;
(c)	The respondent knew that the position set out in the written submission was not true, because it was different to what he had already told the police; and
(d)	The version set out in his submission was less serious, suggesting that it was intended to obtain a better outcome from the Board through the IA process.
56	After carefully reviewing the evidence and considering the submissions, we are not comfortably satisfied that allegation 3 is proved.  In arriving at this conclusion:
(a)	We are satisfied that information in the letter sent by Moray & Agnew on behalf of Mr Georgopoulos contained false information about the physical altercation that reduced or lessened the seriousness of the assault on ZUR and Mr Georgopoulos’s part in it.
(b)	We are not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Georgopoulos caused this information to be provided to Ahpra or the Board, or indeed that he was aware this false information had been provided. 
In this respect, there are a number of possible inferences that can be drawn from the fact of false information being provided.
These include that Mr Georgopoulos’ lawyers misunderstood or misrecorded their instructions.  
Given Mr Georgopoulos made recorded admissions in his police interview about punching ZUR on the day the assault occurred, it is equally probable that Mr Georgopoulos would have provided similar information to his legal advisors, rather than a different account.  It is not established that the Moray & Agnew letter had been seen and approved by Mr Georgopoulos before it was sent, or that he was fully aware of the contents of the letter. 
(c)	What occurred at the Board meeting on 28 January 2022 is also not entirely clear.  While the Board’s letter, in summarising submissions made on behalf of Mr Georgopoulos, states that he denies grabbing or throwing anyone, there is no specific reference as to whether Mr Georgopoulos made any admissions or denials about punching ZUR.  The oral submissions that were made have not been recorded.
(d)	The evidence does not allow a definitive finding as to how the false information came to be included in the Moray & Agnew letter which was communicated to Ahpra and the Board.  
(e)	We are not comfortably satisfied, however, that it has been proved that the reason for this was that Mr Georgopoulos caused the information to be provided to the Ahpra and the Board. 
57	For these reasons, we find Allegation 3 not proved.
Characterisation of the conduct
58	Section 5 of the National Law includes the following relevant definition of ‘professional misconduct’:
professional misconduct, of a registered health practitioner, includes—
(a) 	unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and
…
(c) 	conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner’s profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.
unprofessional conduct, of a registered health practitioner, means professional conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of the health practitioner by the public or the practitioner’s professional peers ...
Parties’ submissions
59	The Board’s submission is that in respect of each of allegation 1 and allegation 2, that we would find the conduct of Mr Georgopoulos to be professional misconduct.  In this respect, it was submitted that the conduct comes within the definition of paragraph (c) (although a finding is also open under paragraph (a)). 
60	The Board submitted, at paragraphs 35-37 of the written submission (citations omitted):
In relation to a finding under paragraph (c) of the definition, the term “fit and proper person” allows for a wide range of matters to be considered. As stated by the Tribunal in Psychology Board of Australia v Griersmith:
It includes not only whether a person has the necessary honesty, knowledge and ability but also whether the person possesses sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to permit them to be accredited to the public as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work the relevant registration or licence entails. The decision maker needs to make a value judgment and, in so doing, must make an assessment of the seriousness or otherwise of the particular conduct for evaluation. The same approach is to be applied to weighing matters in favour of the person. The test must be applied in the context of what the person will be authorised to do if the relevant permission is given. 
For paragraph (c), the focus is on whether the conduct of the practitioner is inconsistent with being a fit and proper person to hold registration, as opposed to the practitioner’s current suitability to hold registration.
Allegations one and two are very serious criminal conduct. They caused injury to [ZUR]. They caused trauma to [ZUR’s son]. They involved, in the case of allegation two, chasing a child into a home. They involved a group attack in concern on a one man. As alluded to during the police interview, the respondent’s status as a health practitioner means he knew, or ought to have been, particularly aware of the potential for causing serious injury. The conduct was inconsistent with the professional code of conduct. It brings the profession into disrepute. There are many examples of violent conduct, outside of the practice of a health profession, constituting professional misconduct.
61	Mr Georgopoulos, in his correspondence to VCAT, agrees that the facts to which he admits (as outlined above) amount to professional misconduct under both paragraphs (a) and (c).  He also submits that only a single finding of professional misconduct should be made.  
VCAT decision
62	We do not agree Mr Georgopoulos’ submission that only a single finding of misconduct should be made, and consider that a separate finding should be made in respect of each allegation made by the Board.  The reasons for this are:
(a)	the assault of ZUR, and the pursuit of his son, while part of the same incident, are two separate and discrete acts;
(b)	the matters have resulted in separate and distinct charges; and
(c)	they concern two separate persons, and the impacts arising from them are separate and distinct.
63	In our view, the correct characterisation of the conduct of Mr Georgopoulos, in respect of each of the allegations, is professional misconduct as described in paragraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in the National Law.  
64	We agree with the submissions of the Board that the conduct is serious and criminal, that it caused injury to ZUR and trauma to his son.  We are satisfied that Mr Georgopoulos would have been aware that his assault on ZUR had the potential to cause injury. 
65	The entire incident, and each of the separate acts against ZUR and his son, reflect poorly on Mr Georgopoulos’ character.  It is conduct that would not be expected or accepted of an osteopath.  The conduct impacts substantially on the trust that the public can place in him to work as an osteopath. 
66	The proved conduct for each allegation, taken separately, is inconsistent with the Code of Conduct of registered health practitioners, which provides in particular that practitioners must always act in accordance with the law, and that practitioners must be ethical and trustworthy. 
67	The conduct is, in our view, clearly inconsistent with Mr Georgopoulos being fit and proper to hold registration as an osteopath.  
68	For these reasons, and as permitted by section 196(1)(b) of the National Law, we decide as follows:
(a)	as regards allegation 1, we find that the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition in the National Law; and
(b)	as regards allegation 2, we find that the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (c) of the definition in the National Law.
Determinations
69	Section 196(2) of the National Law is to the effect that where VCAT makes a decision under section 196(1)(b), VCAT may decide on actions, relevantly including to caution or reprimand the practitioner.
70	Section 196(4) of the National Law relevantly provides that if the person does not hold registration, VCAT may also decide to disqualify the person from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period, and prohibit the person, either permanently or for a stated period, from providing any health service.
71	The recent decision of VCAT in Osteopathy Board of Australia v Reid provides a good summary of the relevant matters to be considered when making determinations under the National Law.  As noted in that decision:
(a)	VCAT’s primary role is to protect the public rather than to punish health practitioners who engage in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct.  Determinations also assist to maintain proper ethical and professional standards to protect the public and the profession in the sense of maintaining stature and integrity in the eyes of the public.  VCAT is also required, in appropriate cases, to make determinations which will deter the individual health practitioner from engaging in the same or like conduct again and/or which serve as a warning to other health practitioners that engaging in the conduct will bring serious consequences—the latter is known as general deterrence.
(b)	In some cases, specific deterrence is of lesser importance because a practitioner has been rehabilitated, is retired or has otherwise agreed not to practice again.  Despite that, general deterrence may call for the imposition of a determination which acts as a warning to other members of the profession that like conduct may lead to significant consequences.
(c)	It is understood that although determinations are not intended to be punitive, they can have that effect on individual practitioners.
(d)	Personal matters such as shame, personal ordeal, and financial difficulty are of little relevance except as far as they contribute to the specific deterrence of the practitioner.
(e)	The assessment of the ongoing risk posed by the practitioner should be central to the imposition of a determination.  The degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight into his or her conduct is relevant to the assessment of the continuing risk posed by the practitioner. Insight can include an understanding of the nature of the conduct, an acceptance that the conduct was wrong, an appreciation of why the practitioner engaged in that conduct, empathy with the consequences, and/or a willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and to do that which is necessary to avoid further transgressions.
(f)	Any form of official censure is of consequence.  A reprimand should not be considered a ‘slap over the wrist’: it puts the public and the relevant profession on notice that the practitioner has failed to meet the standards of the profession and is a means by which VCAT admonishes the practitioner for their proven conduct.
72	The Board’s written submission highlighted consideration of additional matters including most relevantly:
(a)	the nature and seriousness of the conduct;
(b)	whether the practitioner pleaded guilty;
(c)	other evidence of contrition or remorse;
(d)	any other disciplinary findings before or since the conduct in question;
(e)	any delay from the time the investigation started to the VCAT hearing; and
(f)	other mitigating circumstances including family or other personal circumstances.
VCAT determinations – general considerations
73	In this matter, VCAT has been limited in its assessment of some of the relevant factors as a result of Mr Georgopoulos not appearing at the hearing.  For example, Mr Georgopoulos’ failure to attend and provide evidence limited our ability to fully understand the conduct the subject of the proved allegations, to assess his remorse and to understand his preparedness to practice in the future.  Our assessment is confined to the documentary information before VCAT, assisted by the submissions of Mr Stoller.
74	We note the following matters, which are highly relevant to our determinations:
(a)	The conduct of Mr Georgopoulos in assaulting ZUR, in company with his father and brother, is a serious and criminal matter.  His own part, at a minimum, included multiple punches, and in addition ZUR was kicked and pushed.  The assault caused injuries to ZUR, and terrified him and his family.
(b)	The conduct of Mr Georgopoulos in chasing ZUR’s son into his family home is also serious and criminal.  It is clear that this caused ZUR’s son substantial fear and distress.
(c)	To his credit, Mr Georgopoulos admitted to his offending on the day of the assaults.  He has acknowledged the offending conduct and undertaken a Diversion Program.  
(d)	VCAT is not aware of any disciplinary, criminal, or other related matters before or since the offending occurred.
Reprimand
75	The Board submits Mr Georgopoulos should be reprimanded.
76	We understand this is not contested by Mr Georgopoulos.
77	We agree that a reprimand is appropriate.  The reprimand reflects our disapproval in the strongest terms of the conduct of Mr Georgopoulos.  His conduct was very substantially less than the conduct the community expects of an osteopath.   
Disqualification
78	The Board submits Mr Georgopoulos should be disqualified from applying for registration as an osteopath for a period of six months.
79	We understand Mr Georgopoulos contests this determination.
80	We agree that a period of disqualification is appropriate.  
81	This case is one that raises both issues of general and specific deterrence. 
82	As regards general deterrence, we note: 
(a)	it is important that all registered osteopaths are aware that criminal conduct that occurs outside their practice may have significant professional consequences.  Mr Georgopoulos’ assault on ZUR and his son was entirely inconsistent with his role as an osteopath in the community in which they all lived; and
(b)	in this context, a period of disqualification reflects the importance of maintaining proper professional standards of osteopaths as health professionals in the eyes of the community.
83	As regards specific deterrence, we have quite limited information about Mr Georgopoulos’ insight into his conduct.  We are aware he has admitted to some of the conduct, acknowledged the criminal charges and that he regrets his part in the events.  There is also evidence—in particular, references provided for the Magistrates’ Court proceedings—that conduct on 13 August 2021 was out of character for him.  We do not have other evidence, such as reports of treating practitioners or Mr Georgopoulos’ own evidence, to further assess his insight.  
84	We have considered that Mr Georgopoulos was the subject of immediate action after the Board was notified of the matter, and he was suspended from practice for five months (from January to June 2022).  
85	In addition, we have not found the allegations as regards to misrepresentations (allegation 3) proved.  This matter was relied upon in the Board’s submissions as a factor justifying a six month disqualification.  
86	We have considered the cases referred to us by the Board as demonstrating that a six month disqualification was justified, although we note that each of those cases had elements that distinguish them from this matter.
87	On balance, our view is that Mr Georgopoulos should be disqualified from applying for registration as an osteopath for a period of four months.  
88	This determination sends a clear message that Mr Georgopoulos’ conduct was unacceptable, and that this type of conduct will have significant repercussions on a practitioner.  It has regard to the entirety of the proved conduct and the period of suspension already imposed.  It sends, we believe, a strong message to the profession and the community. 
Prohibition on providing health service 
89	The Board submits Mr Georgopoulos should be prohibited from providing any health service unless and until he is registered as a registered health practitioner under the National Law.
90	The Board’s submission is that a prohibition order will ensure that the disqualification period has a meaningful impact, to remove the risk that it might be subverted by the respondent simply providing health services other than whilst registered under the National Law.
91	We understand Mr Georgopoulos contests this determination.
92	We have carefully considered the Board’s submission.  
93	We agree that a purpose of prohibition orders is to ensure that a health practitioner who is disqualified cannot provide related health services to members of the public through an unregulated profession.  Otherwise, ‘it would be seen as a “backdoor” way of overcoming orders for cancellation and disqualification’.
94	Such an order may be appropriate where there is a real risk of a practitioner practising in a non-registrable health-related area.   An example of this was the matter of Medical Board of Australia v Piesse, where a medical practitioner was prohibited from using the title ‘Doctor’ in circumstances where VCAT stated:
We cannot be confident that Dr Piesse will not seek to use the authority which comes with the title ‘Doctor’, to continue to promote, via research, education, publications or public advocacy, conduct which is contrary to law, such as the issuing of vaccine exemptions for children on the basis of criteria which fall outside those specified in the Tax Act and the PHW Act.
95	However, in circumstances where there is no evidence of a risk that Mr Georgopoulos may seek to provide unregulated health services, we do not agree that such an order is necessary to fulfil the protective purposes of our determination.
96	In addition, the nature of the proposed order is open-ended, in that it is proposed to continue until Mr Georgopoulos is again registered.  The Board submitted that the need for such an order is that only on an application for registration would an assessment of whether Mr Georgopoulos is fit and proper to hold registration be made.  
97	However, it is unclear why such a prohibition order would be necessary to protect the public or maintain proper ethical and professional standards of the osteopathy profession. 
98	Our view is the basis for such a determination has not been made out by the Board. 

S Cohen
Presiding 
Member	E O’Brien
Health Practitioner Member	D Culcasi
Health Practitioner Member	

ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS [anonymised as regards the victims and their family by VCAT]
The allegations in respect of Christian Georgopoulos (Dr Georgopoulos) referred to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) by the Osteopathy Board of Australia (Board) pursuant to section 193(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) are:
1.	That Dr Georgopoulos engaged in:
(a)	professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of section 5 of the National Law; 
and/or
(b)	unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law;
in that, on or about 13 November 2021, Dr Georgopoulos, together with two other members of his family, physically attacked ZUR at ZUR’s private residence, intentionally or recklessly causing injury to ZUR.
PARTICULARS
The particulars include, but are not limited to:
(i)	At all material times, Dr Georgopoulos was a registered osteopath.
(ii)	On or about 13 November 2021, Dr Georgopoulos attended the private residence of the ZUR’s family [address deleted] (ZUR residence), in the company of his brother, Travis Georgopoulos (Travis), and his father, Christos Georgopoulos (Christos).
(iii)	While standing outside the entrance to the ZUR residence, Christos, and subsequently Travis and Dr Georgopoulos, demanded that ZUR inform them where ZUR’s older son was located and/or to bring him to speak with them.
(iv)	After ZUR refused this request, Dr Georgopoulos, Travis and Christos engaged in a physical altercation with ZUR.
(v)	During the physical altercation, one or more of Dr Georgopoulos, Travis and Christos:
(A)	thrust ZUR head-first against a wooden pillar on the veranda;
(B)	threw ZUR head-first into the concrete driveway;
(C)	pulled ZUR’s jumper over his head, which prevented him from being able to defend himself; and/or
(D)	punched and kicked ZUR repeatedly, for a period of between 25 and 30 seconds, including in his side and organ area.
(vi)	Of the conduct set out at particular (v), Dr Georgopoulos, at a minimum, engaged in the conduct in particular (v)(D) by hitting ZUR with a closed fist a number of times.
(vii)	At the time of his conduct at particular (vi), Dr Georgopoulos knew that the blows he inflicted had the potential to cause injury to ZUR.
(viii)	As a result of his conduct at particular (vi), the following criminal charges were laid against Dr Georgopoulos:
(A)	one charge of unlawful assault in company with others, in contravention of section 24(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic);
(B)	one charge of unlawful assault, in contravention of section 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic);
(C)	one charge of intentionally causing injury, in contravention of section 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); and/or
(D)	one charge of recklessly causing injury, in contravention of section 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(ix)	On 3 July 2022, Dr Georgopoulos appeared in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria in relation to the charges set out in particular (viii) above.
(x)	On 4 July 2022, Dr Georgopoulos signed a diversion plan in respect of the charges set out in particular (viii) above.
(xi)	The conduct of Dr Georgopoulos set out at particulars (ii) to (vii) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Dr Georgopoulos by the public or by Dr Georgopoulos's professional peers – and is inconsistent with the Code of Conduct for registered health practitioners, in effect from 17 March 2014 to 28 June 2022 (Shared Code of Conduct), which provides that:
(A)	practitioners must always act in accordance with the law (page 6);
(B)	in relation to professional values, qualities, and behaviours:
(I)	while individual practitioners have their own personal beliefs and values, there are certain professional values on which all practitioners are expected to base their practice. These professional values apply to the practitioner's conduct regardless of the setting, including in person and electronically, e.g. social media, e-health etc (page 6):
(II)	practitioners…must be ethical and trustworthy. Patients or clients trust practitioners because they believe that, in addition to being competent, practitioners will not take advantage of them and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion (page 6); and/or
(III)	in professional life, practitioners must display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community. This includes observing and practising the principles of ethical conduct (page 18).
2.	That Dr Georgopoulos engaged in:
(a)	professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of section 5 of the National Law;
and/or
(b)	unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law;
in that, on or about 13 November 2021, Dr Georgopoulos:
(i)	entered ZUR’s residence without authority; and/or
(ii)	chased ZUR’s younger son for several metres, causing ZUR’s younger son to apprehend violence from Dr Georgopoulos.
PARTICULARS
The particulars include, but are not limited to:
(i)	At all material times, Dr Georgopoulos was a registered osteopath.
(ii)	The Board refers to and repeats particulars (ii) to (iv) of Allegation 1 above.
(iii)	ZUR’s younger son witnessed part of the physical altercation as set out in those particulars.
(iv)	During the physical altercation, Dr Georgopoulos sighted ZUR’s younger son at the entrance to ZUR’s residence.
(v)	Dr Georgopoulos:
(A)	misapprehended that ZUR’s younger son was another of ZUR’s sons; 
(B)	shouted 'get here';
(C)	ran towards ZUR’s younger son, who fled into ZUR’s residence; and/or
(D)	chased ZUR’s younger son several metres into ZUR’s residence, only stopping when he heard ZUR’s younger son saying, 'I'm not [the other son]'.
(vi)	ZUR’s younger son was 13 years old at the time.
(vii)	Dr Georgopoulos' conduct described at particulars (ii) and (v) would be reasonably expected to cause, and did cause, ZUR’s younger son to apprehend violence from Dr Georgopoulos.
(viii)	As a result of his conduct at particular (v), the following criminal charges were laid against Dr Georgopoulos:
(A)	one charge of unlawful assault, in contravention of section 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic); and/or
(B)	one charge of entering a private place without authority from the occupier or lawful excuse, in contravention of section 9(1)(e) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).
(ix)	On 3 July 2022, Dr Georgopoulos appeared in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria in relation to the charges set out in particular (viii) above.
(x)	On 4 July 2022, Dr Georgopoulos signed a diversion plan in respect of the charges set out in particular (viii) above.
(xi)	the conduct of Dr Georgopoulos set out at particulars (ii) to (vii)(vi) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Dr Georgopoulos by the public or by Dr Georgopoulos's professional peers – and is inconsistent with the Shared Code of Conduct, which provides that:
(A)	practitioners must always act in accordance with the law (page 6);
(B)	in relation to professional values, qualities, and behaviours:
(I)	while individual practitioners have their own personal beliefs and values, there are certain professional values on which all practitioners are expected to base their practice. These professional values apply to the practitioner's conduct regardless of the setting, including in person and electronically, e.g. social media, e-health etc (page 6):
(II)	practitioners…must be ethical and trustworthy. Patients or clients trust practitioners because they believe that, in addition to being competent, practitioners will not take advantage of them and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion (page 6); and/or
(III)	in professional life, practitioners must display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community. This includes observing and practising the principles of ethical conduct (page 18).
3.	That Dr Georgopoulos engaged in:
(a)	professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of section 5 of the National Law;
and/or
(b)	unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in section 5 of the National Law;
in that, on or about 27 January 2022, Dr Georgopoulos caused false and/or misleading information to be provided to Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) and/or the Board in his submissions regarding the Board's proposed immediate action.
PARTICULARS
The particulars include, but are not limited to:
(i)	At all material times, Dr Georgopoulos was a registered osteopath.
(ii)	The Board refers to and repeats particulars (ii) to (vii) of Allegation 1 above.
(iii)	On 19 January 2022, the Board:
(A)	proposed to take immediate action by suspending Dr Georgopoulos' registration, in relation to the events the subject of Allegations 1 and 2; and
(B)	invited Dr Georgopoulos to provide written and/or verbal submissions to the Board.
(iv)	On 27 January 2022, Moray & Agnew (a law firm) sent a letter to Ahpra, enclosing written submissions on Dr Georgopoulos' behalf.
(v)	The submissions stated that, in relation the physical altercation referred to in particular (iv) of Allegation 1, Dr Georgopoulos had 'slapped ZUR with an open palm on his left lower ribs, four times, to try and extricate Dr Georgopoulos' father from ZUR’s hold, as ZUR was holding Dr Georgopoulos' father in a headlock'.
(vi)	The statement referred to in particular (v) above was false and/or misleading, in that, during the physical altercation referred to in particular (iv) of Allegation 1:
(A)	Dr Georgopoulos hit ZUR a number of times, with a closed fist;
(B)	ZUR did not put Christos in a headlock; and/or
(C)	Dr Georgopoulos could not clearly see Christos whilst engaging in the conduct in particular (vi)(A) above.
(vii)	The conduct of Dr Georgopoulos set out at particulars (ii) to (vi) is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of Dr Georgopoulos by the public or by Dr Georgopoulos's professional peers – and is inconsistent with the Shared Code of Conduct, which provides that:
(A)	practitioners must always act in accordance with the law (page 6);
(B)	in relation to professional values, qualities, and behaviours:
(I)	while individual practitioners have their own personal beliefs and values, there are certain professional values on which all practitioners are expected to base their practice. These professional values apply to the practitioner's conduct regardless of the setting, including in person and electronically, e.g. social media, e-health etc (page 6):
(II)	practitioners…must be ethical and trustworthy. Patients or clients trust practitioners because they believe that, in addition to being competent, practitioners will not take advantage of them and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion (page 6);
(III)	In professional life, practitioners must display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community. This includes observing and practising the principles of ethical conduct (page 18);
(C)	patients or clients have a right to complain about their care. When a complaint is made or a formal notification is received by a Board, good practice involves…complying with relevant complaints legislation, policies and procedures (page 13); and/or
(D)	practitioners have responsibilities and rights relating to any legitimate investigation of their practice or that of a colleague… Good practice involves…disclosing to anyone entitled to ask for it information relevant to an investigation into the conduct, performance or health of a practitioner or colleague (page 20).