An Adelaide optometrist who tampered with more than 400 glasses prescriptions has had his ban from the profession extended from one year to five years.
South Australia's Supreme Court has overturned the original penalty handed to Ashok Bhoola, saying a 12-month ban was not sufficient to "protect the public", to "maintain confidence in the profession" nor "to send a message that such conduct cannot be tolerated".
Last year, the SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) found Mr Bhoola secretly and dishonestly altered the prescriptions of his business partners' patients on 410 occasions in 2015 and 2016.
Mr Bhoola, who was a partner in the West Lakes Specsavers franchise in Adelaide at the time, denied altering the prescriptions.
But investigations by the franchise, including analysis by a forensic accountant, showed he "must have been" responsible.
Mr Bhoola never explained his motivation and he was stripped of his registration for one year.
The Optometry Board of Australia then appealed the decision, urging a tougher penalty.
It said the tribunal should have considered the protection of the public more than it did, and should not have considered the effect of the decision on Mr Bhoola's potential employment.
'No insight' into actions
Mr Bhoola's lawyer, Martin Anders, said the sanction was already serious and that he was unlikely to reoffend.
He said Mr Bhoola would still have to reapply to return to optometry, which was not guaranteed.
Auxiliary Justice Katrina Bochner said the original sanction was "clearly insufficient" and altering patient records was "extremely serious".
In a judgement handed down on Tuesday, she said Mr Bhoola had shown "no insight" into his actions.
"He caused significant expense to his employer, both in regard to glasses which had to be remade, and in regard to the investigation which it undertook.
"The investigation process involved a number of staff at Specsavers investing large amounts of time at significant cost to Specsavers. These costs exceeded $50,000."
Auxiliary Justice Bochner said she could have no confidence Mr Bhoola would not reoffend, since he had never explained his conduct and continued to deny it.
"Not only has the respondent demonstrated no insight into his conduct, he has rejected the finding of the SACAT completely," she said.
"This stance can only lead to a conclusion that there can be no confidence that reoffending will not occur."
