Ex-psychologist convicted of assaulting ex-wife loses application to practice in Tasmania

A former psychologist convicted of assaulting his ex-wife in Western Australia two decades ago has been stopped from registering to treat patients in Tasmania after his appeal in the Supreme Court was rejected.

John Sushil Sharma was looking to re-register as a psychologist but his application was rejected by the Psychology Board of Australia in 2022 due to the circumstances surrounding his conviction.

Mr Sharma was convicted of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm against his ex-wife in Western Australia in 2005.

He admitted the crime.

The board’s decision to reject the application was upheld by TASCAT last year and Mr Sharma appealed the decision in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

In his decision dismissing the appeal, Supreme Court Counsel Shane Marshall found the Australian Psychological Board had concerns that the appellant “underplayed the seriousness of his offending” and “continued to attack his credibility despite the passage of time”. of the complainant”.

Inside In a previous appeal, TASCAT found in 2004 that: When Mr Sharma went to his ex-wife’s house to pick up their son, a “heated argument” ensued which ended with Mr Sharma pushing her to the ground.

His ex-wife was using crutches at the time.

The court found that while Mr Sharma was on the ground, he swung his foot and that his leg or part of his foot was in contact with his face, the actions were “avoidable” and involved “undue force” and caused the injury.

Acting Judge Marshall found that Mr Sharma told the court that he pushed his ex-wife to the ground, “began to grab her leg” and “made contact with her” when she tried to get away from him. a result”.

He said that this statement was taken into account by the court when making material findings.

Grounds for objection rejected

Mr Sharma’s objection to the TASCAT decision was lodged on three grounds; These include that he was denied procedural fairness and that the court erred in finding that Mr Sharma’s statements undermined the effect of his admission of conduct in the attack.

Acting Judge Marshall found there was no basis for any of this.

Acting Judge Marshall said: “The evidence before the court showed that the appellant was convicted of a very serious assault as described by the magistrate.” he said.

Acting Judge Marshall found that Mr Sharma repeatedly “downplayed the seriousness of his offending” when giving evidence to the court and inferred that he “exaggerated his ex-wife’s injuries”.

He said he could find no basis for the claim that the court had failed to find out what the circumstances of the crime were.

“There was sufficient evidence before the court to conclude that the appellant was not a fit person to practice psychology and that it was not in the public interest for him to do so.”

Mr. Sharma’s appeal was dismissed.

Loading…