29 Jan 2021
A former Victorian chiropractor has been reprimanded by a tribunal and disqualified from applying for registration for eight years.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) found the behaviour of Mr Adrian Oorloff constituted professional misconduct subsequent to him receiving a criminal conviction.
In August 2015, following a police investigation, Mr Oorloff was charged with criminal offences in part relating to a former patient and held in custody on remand.
Allegations included incitement to kidnap and/or drug his former patient, possession of methylamphetamine, 1-4 butanediol, cannabis L, schedule 4 poisons, and/or a live round of ammunition and failure to give notice to the Chiropractic Board of Australia (the Board) within seven days of being charged with offences (a requirement under the National Law).
Mr Oorloff was convicted of the charges in the Country Court of Victoria and sentenced to a head sentence of six years and three months imprisonment in October 2016. The practitioner's professional registration lapsed in November 2015 and he was unregistered at the time of the convictions.
Because Mr Oorloff held registration as a chiropractor when he committed the offences, the Board referred the matter to the tribunal. The tribunal made findings that Mr Oorloff engaged in professional misconduct and on 19 December 2019 Mr Oorloff was reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner fora period of eight years.
In practical terms, the tribunal noted that the period of disqualification means that Mr Oorloff will have served the whole of his criminal sentence of six years and three months and will have had the equivalent period in the community before being able to apply to be re-registered. The tribunal also noted that it would have cancelled the practitioner’s registration were it still in force.
The tribunal noted that general deterrence (and protection of the profession’s reputation) is of importance to send a strong message that a health practitioner who engages in similar conduct is likely to forfeit their right to practice in their profession for a significant period of time, if not forever.
The Tribunal’s decision appears on the AustLII website.