Peter Whyte, a doctor who illicitly acquired a colleague’s prescription pad and forged her signature, was exposed when his transgressions crossed state lines. His actions came to light during proceedings at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) last week.
Whyte, while employed at a hospital in Western Australia in June 2020, stole the prescription pad from a fellow medical professional. He later relocated to Victoria in January 2021, where he began issuing forged prescriptions for self-administration from March to May of that year. Many prescriptions were issued, however, a discerning pharmacist took notice of a dubious script for Panadeine Forte. Recognising the same substance had been filled recently at another pharmacy, the pharmacist alerted a colleague of Whyte’s, who confirmed the script was not hers and identified his handwriting.
In response to these revelations, the colleague and another practitioner from Whyte’s former workplace reported the matter to the Medical Board of Australia, while the pharmacist contacted local police. A subsequent police search at Whyte’s home in Victoria uncovered various substances, including those procured through the forged prescriptions, as well as drugs sourced online or overseas. Among the drugs found were Schedule 4 poisons, including medications used for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer treatment, alongside a replica firearm for which he lacked proper authorisation.
Following this investigation, Whyte faced thirty criminal charges. He ultimately pleaded guilty in the Melbourne Magistrates Court and was fined $2500, although he received no criminal conviction. VCAT subsequently reprimanded him for his misconduct, disqualifying him from reapplying for medical registration for 18 months. Given that he hasn’t held a practising registration since January 2023 and has not worked since February 2022, Whyte will be barred from medical practice for a cumulative total of three years and seven months.
Senior tribunal member Anna Dea remarked in her findings that it was clear Whyte’s actions constituted professional misconduct.