Adrian M Walker

Preliminary Matters
Service

1.          The Panel has an unredacted letter dated 24 August 2022 which was sent by post to the Registrant’s registered address and by email to his registered email address. The letter gives notice of the date and time of today's hearing and that it will be conducted remotely. The Panel has seen a document confirming that the letter was posted on 24 August 2022, and an email of the same date from Microsoft Outlook confirming delivery of the email to the Registrant’s email address. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that proper notice of these proceedings has been served on the Registrant.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
2.          Mr Keating applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.  He submitted that it was clear from correspondence from the Registrant that he was aware of today’s hearing and that he did not intend to attend.  He had therefore voluntarily waived his right to attend, and the proceedings should go ahead in his absence. 
3.          The Panel received and accepted legal advice before considering whether to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel has exercised particular care and caution in reaching its decision and has considered the various matters set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant.  It has had regard to correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC and Kingsley Napley in which the Registrant makes it clear that he has now retired as an Operating Department Practitioner and wishes to have his name removed from the Register. The Panel has also had regard to the submissions of Mr Keating.    
4.          The Panel accepts that there will be some disadvantage to the Registrant by not being present and participating in the hearing but considers that as this is a “conviction” case, this will be minimal, and the Panel will be careful to consider all matters which are in the Registrant’s favour throughout the proceedings.    

5.          The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant is aware of today’s hearing and has made an informed decision not to attend or be represented at it. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily waived his right to be present at today’s hearing.

  
6.          The Panel has also considered whether an adjournment would result in the Registrant’s attendance on another date. It notes the Registrant has not asked for an adjournment and indeed wishes his name to be removed from the Register. The Panel is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by adjourning this hearing as it is unlikely that the Registrant would attend on a later date.  

7.          The Panel is satisfied that there is a clear public interest in this case being concluded. The Panel considers that it is in the public interest for final hearings to proceed on the date on which they are listed to be heard.  

8.          In reaching its decision, the Panel has balanced fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the wider public interest. The Panel is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to proceed today in the Registrant’s absence.    

Application to amend the Allegation
9.          Mr Keating applied at the outset of the hearing to amend each of the sub-particulars of Particular of the Allegation so that the wording was grammatically more accurate and therefore better reflected the evidence in relation to the conviction. Mr Keating submitted that the proposed amendments were minor in nature and did not alter in any way the case alleged against the Registrant. 

10.       The Panel has read all the papers in the case and is satisfied each of the proposed amendments is purely grammatical and does not alter the case alleged against the Registrant to his detriment. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the proposed amendments do not cause prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel approves each of the proposed amendments.
 
Background

11.       The Registrant was employed as an Operating Department Practitioner by Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) at the relevant time. 

12.       On 5 February 2019, the Registrant was arrested at his home address by Cheshire Police on suspicion of “possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, contrary to section 160 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988” A search warrant was executed, and a number of digital devices were seized by police, including a number of mobile phones, a Sony camcorder, and some memory sticks.

13.       On 11 February 2019, the HCPC received a referral from the Trust raising concerns that the Registrant had been arrested on suspicion of offences and had been “released under investigation” by the police. These items were forensically examined. In total there were 1523 indecent images of children, 25 indecent moving images of children, 2 prohibited images of children and 5 images of extreme pornographic content.  The breakdown of the categories of the indecent images was as follows: 
Category A – 315 indecent images of children and 6 indecent moving images of children
Category B – 388 indecent images of children and 9 indecent moving images of children
Category C – 785 indecent images of children and 11 indecent moving images of children
The tape found in the Sony camcorder had a Category C indecent image of a child. 

14.       The Registrant was interviewed under caution on 17 October 2019 when he admitted that he had seen indecent images of children on the computer and phones. He claimed that they had been sent to him from a social media App. He denied searching for them or asking for them to be sent to him. The Registrant claimed that he had not wanted the images and that he had deleted most of them.

15.       The forensic examination of the devices showed that the Registrant had used search terms which showed that he had actively sought indecent images of children and had accessed chats associated with teen activity.  He had also used a file sharing software to access files associated with child sexual abuse. The Registrant had used various social media platforms with the username “Thomas James” and an email address “thomas_james@live.co.uk. The evidence showed that the Registrant has chatted online with a number of children.

16.       The Registrant was again interviewed under caution on 10 March 2021.  By this time the police had become aware that the Registrant had been posing online as a 16-year-old boy using the name “Thomas James”.  At the beginning of 2018, he had contacted a 13-year-old girl (“L”) using the social media App, Snapchat. Using the name “Thomas James”, the Registrant had told L that he lived in Manchester, liked football and was in the 6th form.  L told him that she was 13 years old.  L and the Registrant (posing as “Thomas James”) spoke nearly every day for a few weeks.  Then the Registrant asked L to send him a photograph of herself naked.  Initially, L declined to do so but the Registrant continued to ask and eventually, L sent the Registrant about 15 photographs of herself in which she was either naked or semi-naked.  The Registrant sent L a photograph of a penis and a photograph of a teenage boy which he purported was him. 

17.       According to L, at one point the Registrant blocked her on Snapchat but later added her to another social media platform, Instagram where L could see that all the followers of "Thomas James" were her followers, her friends and family.  Forensic examination determined that L had been blocked on 23 September 2018.  Shortly after this the Registrant had added L back onto the Snapchat platform and had messaged her, threatening that if she did not do as he wanted and for as long as he wanted, he would post the photographs she had sent him for her family and friends to see.  According to L, the Registrant had said he wanted a video call with her at 10 pm and she was to be naked during the call. 

18.       Rather than make the video call, L contacted a helpline to get advice as she was very concerned about her parents and grandparents finding out what had been happening.  During her call to the helpline, L indicated that she felt suicide was the only way out for her.  The person she was speaking to on the helpline was so concerned about what L was saying that she contacted the police.

19.       When the Registrant was interviewed under caution on 10 March 2021, he denied having any knowledge of the chats, the usernames, and any indecent images of children above and beyond the ones he had stated were received by him in the first interview.  He denied posing as “Thomas James” or using that name in any communication.  The Registrant agreed that as the only other person living with him at the relevant time was his daughter, the police would have to investigate whether she was the person who had posed as “Thomas James”. 

20.       On 16 August 2021, the Registrant pleaded guilty and was convicted at Chester Crown Court of 10 charges in relation to a number of child and sexual offences. The Registrant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.  A Sexual Harm Prevention Order was made for a period of 10 years and the Registrant is listed on the Sex Offenders Register for life.  The 10 offences to which the Registrant pleaded guilty are reflected in Particular 1 a) to j) of the Allegation.

Decision on Facts
Particular 1 was found proved
21.       The HCPC provided the Panel with a bundle of documents for the hearing but did not call any live evidence.  The Panel has seen a statement from SL, Legal Assistant of Kingsley Napley in which she produces all the exhibits in the HCPC bundle.  These included:
a) various emails from Cheshire Police relating to the Registrant’s arrest and subsequent charges in relation to possession of indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children. 
b) a transcript of the sentencing hearing at Chester Crown Court on 6 September 2021 together with a Memorandum of Conviction dated 17 May 2022 confirming that on 16 August 2021 the Registrant had pleaded guilty to 10 offences, as reflected in Particular 1 a) to j) of the Allegation.

22.       The Panel has been advised that it can rely on the Memorandum of Conviction as conclusive proof that the Registrant was convicted of the offences set out in the Allegation.  Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied, based on the Memorandum of Conviction, that Particular 1 a) to j) is proved.    

Decision on Grounds

23.       The Panel is satisfied, based on the Memorandum of Conviction, that the statutory ground of conviction is proved.  

Decision on Impairment 
24.       In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes “Fitness to Practice Impairment”. The Panel has taken account of the submissions of Mr Keating. It has received and accepted legal advice. The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of this hearing is not to punish the Registrant for past misdoings but to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise. 

Submissions
25.       Mr Keating submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both personal and public component grounds.  
26.       In relation to the personal component, Mr Keating submitted that by his plea of guilty the Registrant had shown limited insight into his conviction.  Mr Keating referred to the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks where it was clear that the indecent images had been downloaded over a period of 14 years.  He submitted that this indicated the Registrant has a deep-rooted and long-standing interest sexual interest in children. Mr Keating submitted that there was no evidence the Registrant had taken any steps taken to remedy his conviction, and so there was a high risk of repetition in this case. 

27.       In relation to the public component, Mr Keating submitted that sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for a man of previous good character who had pleaded guilty, was a clear indication of the serious nature of the conviction in this case. Mr Keating referred the Panel to the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks where the Judge had referred to the convictions involving L as involving planning, deception, and manipulation. The Judge described the Registrant’s conduct as “grooming” and commented that L was not the only child he had spoken to online.  Mr Keating submitted that public confidence in the profession would be gravely undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case.   

   
28.       Mr Keating submitted that the degree of harm caused by the Registrant in this case was significant, as was his culpability for that harm.

Decision

29.       The Panel first considered whether or not the Registrant’s conviction has put members of the public at unwarranted risk of harm. The Panel is wholly satisfied that when the Registrant posed as a 16-year-old boy to inveigle L to send him photographs of her naked, he put her at unwarranted risk of harm.  Indeed, from her victim impact statement it is clear that the Registrant did harm L.  In his Sentencing Remarks, the Judge said that L had felt “fear and panic as well as embarrassment and shame for what her family and friends would think of her, if you had posted naked pictures….and as 10 o’clock was getting closer and closer she thought that the only way out was to kill herself”. Furthermore, in possessing, distributing, and making indecent images of children, the Registrant was putting those children at unwarranted risk of harm.

30.       The Panel has no doubt that in committing the offences of which he has been convicted, the Registrant has brought the Operating Department Practitioner profession into disrepute. The public is entitled to rely on registered professionals not to commit serious criminal offences such as those involved in this case. When they do, this inevitably brings the profession into disrepute.

31.       The Panel is also satisfied that in committing criminal offences involving multiple indecent images of children and inciting a girl between 13 to 15 years to engage in sexual activity, the Registrant breached a fundamental tenet of his profession, namely that a registered professional must make sure that their personal and professional behaviour justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession. 

Personal component
32.       The Panel has considered the personal component. It is satisfied that the convictions in this case while very serious are capable of being remedied albeit that this might be difficult, and a panel would need to see significant steps taken by a registrant before it could find conduct such as this remedied. The Panel has seen no evidence that the Registrant has taken any steps to remedying the offending behaviour that led to his conviction. The correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC indicates that he has now retired and no longer intends to work as an Operating Department Practitioner when he is released from his prison sentence. The Registrant wishes for his name to be removed from the Register. The Panel notes that there is nothing in this correspondence which suggests that the Registrant has or intends to remedy the underlying behaviour that led to his conviction.    

33.       The Panel takes the view that the Registrant has only very limited insight into his offending behaviour and the impact it has had not only on L, the other children involved in the indecent images, but also on his profession. There is no evidence that the Registrant has recognised that by his actions he has damaged public confidence in his profession and brought it into disrepute.   The Panel considers that the only indication that the Registrant has any insight at all is his relatively early indication in the criminal proceedings that he would plead guilty to the various offences with which he was charged.     

34.       The Panel has seen from the transcript of the hearing at Chester Crown Court on 6 September 2021, that it was said on his behalf in mitigation that the Registrant was “deeply ashamed” of his behaviour.  However, the Panel also notes that it was said on the Registrant’s behalf that he did not intend to commit any sexual offences, that the offences he did commit were isolated and out of character and that he had no appetite for indecent images of children.  The Panel considers that this demonstrates how very limited the Registrant’s insight is. The Panel considers that the Registrant’s offending was planned, and it could not be said to be isolated or out of character as it continued over a period of many years.  The Panel notes that the Registrant sought to deflect blame for some of his offending onto his own daughter and throughout the police interviews sought to minimise his offending behaviour.

35.       The Panel has considered the likelihood that the Registrant will repeat his conduct, and it is satisfied that the risk of repetition is very high in this case. The Panel notes that in his Sentencing Remarks, the judge quoted from a pre-sentence report prepared by the Probation Service.  The judge said,
“You take little personal responsibility for your behaviour, as I read the report, and you have sought to minimise your involvement.  The author’s assessment is that you present a “medium risk” of reconviction but a "high risk” of serious harm to children.  I cannot accept that you derived no sexual gratification from your behaviour given the nature of your offending and the indecent images of children.”

36.       The Panel therefore finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

Public component
37.       In relation to the public component, the Panel has considered very carefully whether given the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the convictions in this case, public confidence in the Operating Department Practitioner profession and its regulatory body would be significantly undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case.  The Panel has also considered whether it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in that profession if it did not find impairment in this case.    

  
38.       The Panel has concluded that a reasonable member of the public fully aware of all the facts would be shocked and horrified if there was no finding of impairment where those facts showed that the Registrant’s convictions involved multiple indecent images of children over a number of years and the incitement of a girl of 13 to 15 years to engage in sexual activity and extreme pornographic images involving animals where the risk of repetition was considered to be high. The Panel is satisfied that public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be significantly undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case.   The Panel is also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Operating Department Practitioner profession if it did not find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. 

39.       The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component.

40.       Accordingly, the Panel therefore finds, on both the personal and public component, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired and that the Allegation is well founded.

Decision on Sanction
41.       In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case the Panel referred to, and took account of, the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note on Conviction and Caution Allegations. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. The Panel is aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposes is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have that effect, but it is to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the Operating Department Practitioner profession and to uphold its standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel also had in mind that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the conviction involved.
 
Submissions
42.       Mr Keating, as is the HCPC’s usual approach at the sanction stage, did not advance any particular sanction.  He did provide a useful skeleton argument in which he set out the Panel’s powers and the relevant criteria for each available sanction.
 
Decision
 
43.       The Panel started by reminding itself of paragraph 10 of the Sanctions Policy which sets out the considerations the Panel should have in mind when carrying out its primary function of protecting the public, namely
 
·       “risks the registrant might pose to those who use or need their services;
·       the deterrent effect on other registrants;
·       public confidence in the profession concerned; and
·       public confidence in the regulatory process.”
 
44.       The Panel considered mitigating and aggravating factors. The Panel first looked at the mitigating factors.   It decided that the only mitigating factor was the Registrant’s guilty plea to the criminal offences which was entered at a relatively early stage in the criminal proceedings. The Registrant has not engaged with these proceedings and so has not provided any personal mitigation.
 
45.       The Panel considers the following to be aggravating factors:
 
·       a pattern of unacceptable behaviour which was carried out over a 14-year period.
·       a lack of insight by the Registrant into the behaviour which led to his conviction and its impact on L, the children in the indecent images, his colleagues, his profession, and the wider public interest.
·       a lack of genuine remorse or apology – the Panel does not consider that the reference in the Sentencing Hearing to his being “deeply ashamed” carries much weight as it was put forward with other mitigation which suggested that the Registrant was seeking to minimise his criminal offending.
·       a total lack of remediation.
·       the harm which he caused to L who considered taking her own life, and to the other children who would have been exploited to obtain the significant number of indecent images found on the Registrant’s various digital devices.
·       the fact that the Registrant deflected blame for his offending onto his own daughter.
 
46.       The Panel has also had very much in mind a number of the types of case set out in the Sanctions Policy under the heading “Serious cases”. The Sanctions Policy makes it clear that because of the gravity of these types of case, a panel is likely to impose a more serious sanction. The Panel is satisfied that this case falls under a number of these paragraphs although there is inevitably a certain amount of overlap in their application.

47.       Sexual Misconduct (paragraph 76): the Sanctions Policy states that sexual misconduct is a very serious matter and defines it as including “…. any other conduct of a sexual nature that is without consent, or has the effect of threatening or intimidating e.g., members of the public”.  The Panel has concluded that the offences involving L involved “conduct of a sexual nature…which had the effect of threatening” her. Having successfully “groomed” L and persuaded her to send him naked photographs of herself, the Registrant then blocked L from Snapchat before re-connecting with her on Instagram.  The Panel considers that this was a deliberate and cynical move by the Registrant so that he could “threaten” L with exposure of the photographs to her family and friends unless she did what he wanted her to do. Having issued his threat, the Registrant unblocked L on Snapchat and told her what he wanted her to do. The Panel considers that L was a vulnerable child, and that the Registrant’s conduct was predatory.

48.       Sexual abuse of children (paragraph 78):  the Sanctions Policy states that sexual abuse of children “involves forcing or persuading them to take part in sexual activities and includes both physical contact and online activity”. Paragraph 79 states that sexual abuse of children whether physical or online “is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession”. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s criminal convictions include the sexual abuse of L when he initially persuaded her to take part in sexual activities online. The Panel also considers that had L not contacted the Helpline, the Registrant would have forced her to take part in sexual activities online very much against her will. 

49.       Criminal convictions and cautions (paragraph 80):  the Sanction indicates that there should be a sanction in conviction cases “where, as a consequence of that conviction, the registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired”.  In this case, the Panel has found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public component as a result of his convictions for serious criminal offences.

50.       Sex Offender (paragraph 85): the Sanctions Policy indicates that a panel should consider that inclusion on the Sex Offender’s database is incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the Sex Offender’s database. The Panel notes that in this case the Registrant will be on the Sex Offender’s Register for life as a result of the sentence imposed on him for his offences and will take this into account in imposing a sanction. 

51.       Offences related to indecent images of children (paragraph 89):  the Sanctions Policy states that “any offence relating to indecent images of children involves some degree of exploitation of a child” and is a “very serious matter”. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s offending in relation to indecent images of children was not, as he sought to suggest in the Crown Court, either isolated or out of character. The Panel notes that the offending continued over a 14-year period and involved over 1000 images found on his various digital devices. Each of the children in the images would have been exploited so that the Registrant could derive some form of sexual gratification from them.

52.       The Panel has considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. It has decided that to take no action or impose a Caution Order in this case would not be appropriate or proportionate given that the conviction was not isolated or limited, and nor could it be described as relatively minor in nature. The Panel is not able to conclude that there is a low risk of repetition because the Registrant has not engaged with these proceedings or shown any insight into the causes of his offending behaviour, or the impact of it on L, the other children involved, his colleagues, his profession and the wider public. The Panel is satisfied that to ensure public confidence in the profession is not undermined, it must consider a more severe sanction.

53.       The Panel then considered a Conditions of Practice Order and in particular the matters set out in paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy which states:
     “A Conditions of Practice Order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
·       the registrant has insight;
·       the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
·       there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
·       appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
·       the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
·       a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met;
·       the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice”.
 

54.       The Panel has also had in mind paragraph 109 which states in relation to serious cases and the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order:
 
“However, it should only do so when it is satisfied that the registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation and unlikely to be repeated.”
 
55.       While the Panel has found that the conviction in this case is capable of being remedied, it does not consider that the Registrant’s conduct was “minor”.  The Panel considers that the Registrant has shown no insight into his offending behaviour and therefore, there remains a very high risk that he will repeat it.   The Panel has also concluded that as the Registrant is currently serving a 5-year prison sentence and will remain on the Sex Offenders Register for life on his release from prison, a Conditions of Practice Order is not, in any event, an appropriate sanction in this case. 
 
56.       The Panel next considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. It had in mind the following guidance from the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy:
 
“121   A Suspension Order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

·       the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance, and ethics;
·       the registrant has insight;
·       the issues are unlikely to be repeated;
·       there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”
 
57.       The Panel has already expressed its view that the concerns in this case are capable of being remedied. The Panel has reached the conclusion that whilst the behaviour that led to the conviction may be capable of being remedied, the Registrant has expressed no willingness to do so, and it may be that he is not capable of remedying it.  Furthermore, the Registrant is still serving a prison sentence and will be on the Sex Offender Register for life and the Panel is satisfied that these factors mean that it would not be appropriate to impose a Suspension Order in this case. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded that a Suspension Order is not the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
 
58.       The Panel has also concluded that a Suspension Order even for a period of 12 months, would not be appropriate or proportionate to maintain public confidence in the profession or its regulatory body. Such an Order would not send out an appropriate deterrent message to the profession about this type of conviction. The Panel considers that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would expect a more severe sanction in circumstances where a child aged between 13 and 15 years has been incited to engage in sexual activities online, multiple other children have been exploited by appearing in indecent images, and a registrant has possessed extreme pornography involving animals. The public is entitled to have complete confidence and trust in the Operating Department Practitioners who treat patients when they are at their most vulnerable.  Operating Department Practitioners are entitled to have complete confidence and trust in their colleagues.  The Panel considers that fellow practitioners would consider the Registrant’s conduct in this case to be deplorable.
 
59.       The Panel has therefore concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction is an order striking the Registrant off the Register.  In reaching this conclusion the Panel has weighed the Registrant’s interest in being able to practise with those of the wider public interest.  The Panel has decided that the public interest in this case outweighs any interest the Registrant may have in continuing to practise as an Operating Department Practitioner.  As the Panel has already noted, the Registrant has indicated that he has now retired and has no desire to return to practice. 
 
60.       The Panel has considered the Sanctions Policy where, in paragraph 130, it is stated that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of “last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving” e.g., for sexual misconduct, sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children, and convictions for serious offences.  The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s convictions in this case related to serious, persistent, and deliberate behaviour on his part which involved sexual misconduct, sexual abuse of children and indecent images of children.
 
61.       The Panel also had in mind paragraph 131 which states:
 

“A Striking Off Order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory profession.  In particular where the registrant:

·       lacks insight
·       continues to repeat the misconduct
·       is unwilling to resolve matters.
 
62.       The Panel considers that the Registrant’s response when the allegations were first put to him and his subsequent lack of engagement with these proceedings, suggest that he is “unwilling” to resolve matters”. The Panel has also concluded, particularly after referring to the Judge’s sentencing remarks, that the Registrant lacks insight into his offending behaviour and considers that the risk of his repeating it is very high.  
 
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied, based on the Registrant’s lack of insight, lack of willingness to resolve the concerns relating to the nature and gravity of his convictions, that in order to ensure the public’s confidence in the profession and in its regulatory process, and to uphold proper standards of conduct in the profession, it is appropriate and proportionate to order that the Registrant’s name be struck off the register

Order:  The Registrar is directed to Strike Off the name of Mr Adrian M Walker from the Register on the date that this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order
1.     Mr Keating applied for an Interim Suspension Order. He submitted that the Panel should proceed in the absence of the Registrant who had been given notice that such an application would be made, on grounds that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend. Mr Keating submitted that given the Panel’s findings in relation to impairment, an Interim Suspension Order was necessary to protect the public from an ongoing risk of harm, and it was otherwise in the public interest.
 
2.          The Panel has decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence for the same reasons as set out in its determination above. The Registrant has received proper notice of the application in the email sent to him by the HCPTS on 24 August 2022.  The Panel considers that the Registrant has voluntarily waived his right to attend and that it is in the public interest that such an application is considered.
 
3.          The Panel has decided to make an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest for the reasons set out in the determination above.   This is a case in which the Panel has decided that there is a very high risk of repetition of the Registrant’s offending behaviour and so an Interim Order is necessary to protect the public, particularly children, from harm.  In reaching its decision the Panel is aware that the Registrant is currently still in prison. However, if there was to be an appeal in this case, the appeal process might not be concluded by the time that the Registrant is released from prison and the Panel considers that an Interim Order should be in place to protect the public.
 
4.          The Panel also considers that an Interim Order is desirable in the wider public interest to maintain confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. 
 
5.          This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.
 

History of Hearings for Adrian M Walker