A Gore woman has been convicted of prescription forgery charges, but cannot be named, after her lawyer gave notice he would appeal a judge’s decision to refuse final name suppression.
In February last year, the woman began working as a contractor at a clinic where she had access to its patient database.
On August 19, she accessed the records of a male patient and used his name to create a prescription for 28 Tramadol capsules, with 11 repeats, forging the signature of a doctor.
She presented the prescription at a pharmacy the same day, and returned on five occasions over the following five weeks to get a total of 140 capsules.
On September 29, she used another patient's identity to create a prescription for 60 Codeine capsules, with two repeats, but despite four attempts to do so, could not print the document because of a printer malfunction.
When a clinic employee restarted the printer a few days later, it produced four copies of forged prescription, and the defendant was confronted about her actions on October 5.
When told she would be suspended while an investigation was carried out, she resigned immediately.
In December, the woman admitted charges of forging a prescription to obtain property, using a forged prescription, and forging a prescription.
Counsel Bill Wright told the court the offending involved small quantities of prescription painkillers.
She had admitted the charges at the earliest opportunity, posed no threat to the community, and rehabilitation needed to be the overriding purpose of her sentence.
‘‘There are no victims in this case, in fact the only victim is the defendant.’’
Mr Wright applied for the woman's name to be permanently suppressed, despite his understanding ‘‘apparently all of Gore’’ knew her identity, as he was concerned about the impact social media ‘‘bullying’’ could have on her mental health.
He applied for the discharge on the grounds the consequences of a conviction on her future employment prospects, ability to travel, get insurance and raise finance were out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offending.
Judge Walker turned down the discharge application, saying the gravity of the offending was at least moderate, and the consequences of a conviction were either ‘‘non-specific’’ or ‘‘speculative’’ in nature.
He also declined the application for final name suppression, telling the defendant her offending involved a significant breach of trust.
‘‘I consider the nature of your offending should be known to prospective employers.’’
He convicted the woman and, after accounting for her early guilty pleas, addiction issues and steps she had already taken towards rehabilitation, arrived at an end sentence of 125 hours’ community work and 12 months’ supervision.
Judge Walker made an order for interim name suppression to continue, giving Mr Wright until April 6 to file an appeal against his decision to decline final name suppression.
