Paul Bennett
Profession: Biomedical scientist
Registration Number: BS37251
Hearing Type: Restoration Hearing
Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 22/06/2023
End:
17:00 23/06/2023
Location:
Virtually via video conference
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Restored with Conditions of Practice
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
Your fitness to practise as a registered health professional is impaired by reason of your misconduct in that;
1.Between April 2003 and June 2005 you made fraudulent use of the Sherwood Hospitals NHS Trust (“The Trust”) postal system, misused Trust property and used employed time for your own business, particularly;
a) you sent packages through the Trusts postal system relating to your selling of car parts, on at least five occasions:
b) in relation to your selling of car parts and microscope slides, you sent approximately 250 emails from your work computer.
2.On 28th February 2007 at Mansfield Magistrates Court, you were found guilty of dishonestly using the Trust post franking machine and were given a 12 month Conditional Discharge.
Finding
SUMMARY
Decision of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal, sitting as the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Health and Care Professions Council.
This is a hearing of an application by the Applicant for restoration to the Health and Care Professions (HCPC) register.
Background
1. The Applicant (then a Registrant) was employed as a Biomedical Scientist with the Sherwood Hospitals NHS Trust.
2. In July 2005 the Trust were informed by the Counter Fraud services that they had received information suggesting that the Applicant had abused the Trusts postal service by despatching personal packages of motor car parts for personal gain and also possibly breached the Trusts internet and e-mail policy. Following an internal investigation, a disciplinary hearing was held on the 6 October 2005, subsequently the Applicant was dismissed on the grounds of Gross Misconduct. After the Counter Fraud service investigation, on the 28 February 2007, the Applicant pleaded guilty to dishonestly using the Trusts post franking machine and was given a twelve month conditional discharge.
3. At a substantive hearing held on 21 May 2007 a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee considered the following allegation against the Applicant
Your fitness to practise as a registered health professional is impaired by reason of your misconduct in that;
1.Between April 2003 and June 2005 you made fraudulent use of the Sherwood Hospitals NHS Trust (“The Trust”) postal system, misused Trust property and used employed time for your own business, particularly;
a) you sent packages through the Trusts postal system relating to your selling of car parts, on at least five occasions:
b) in relation to your selling of car parts and microscope slides, you sent approximately 250 emails from your work computer.
2.On 28th February 2007 at Mansfield Magistrates Court, you were found guilty of dishonestly using the Trust post franking machine and were given a 12 month Conditional Discharge.
4. The Applicant admitted the facts of particular 1a) and denied the particular in 1b). The Applicant also admitted the fact of particular 2 and agreed that his fitness to practise was impaired as a result of the conditional discharge which he received.
5. Having considered all of the evidence the panel on 21 May 2007 found that particular 1b) was proved on the balance of probabilities. The first panel stated:
‘The Panel did not accept [the Applicant’s] explanation in relation to this matter and did not find him a credible witness. In particular the Panel noted that [the Applicant] addressed three packages sent through the Trust mailroom to two individuals whom he addressed as Doctors when in fact these titles were incorrect. [The Applicant] could not provide a satisfactory explanation in regards to these actions’. (sic)
6. In considering grounds and impairment the first panel stated ‘Having found all the facts proved, the Panel is satisfied that [the Applicant’s] actions were a deliberate course of conduct for personal gain and as such amount to misconduct. The Panel is of the view that [the Applicant’s] behaviour falls well below the standards of a registered health professional, in particular standards 3,13,14 & 16 of the HPC standards of conduct performance and ethics; and by his own admission [the Applicant] has breached 3, 14 and 16. The Panel concludes that this amounts to an impairment of his fitness to practise’.
7. The first panel looked at sanction and concluded:
‘The Panel considered that to take no action, order mediation or a caution order was not appropriate having regard to the gravity of [the Applicant’s] misconduct. Next the Panel considered a conditions of practise order but decided that conditions were neither appropriate nor practical. The Panel then considered a suspension order. In coming to a view on the sanction, the Panel were concerned by the nature of [the Applicant’s] dishonesty but had regard to the fact that no patient suffered by his action and no complaint had been made about the quality of his work as a Biomedical Scientist. However, the Panel took the view that the level of his dishonesty and deception and his lack of insight into his behaviour means that a suspension order is not a sufficient penalty and would not be a proportionate sanction. The Panel therefore considered that in order to protect the public, to protect the reputation of the profession and to protect the public confidence in the regulatory process, [the Applicant’s] name should be struck from the register because of his deliberate acts of dishonesty and abuse of Trust.’
8. The Applicant submitted an application for restoration to the register dated 30 May 2022. In support of the application the Applicant states
‘I take full responsibility for the offences that I committed and deeply regret the actions that led to my striking off order and understand why the decision was made by the panel at the hearing. The outcome of the hearing had a huge impact on my life both personally and professionally’.
9. The Applicant explained that he has been working for a number of years in the Republic of Ireland where HCPC registration is not required. However, he has now returned to England and seeks to take up employment as a Biomedical Scientist.
Submissions
10. The Panel had sight of a bundle consisting of 204 pages which contained a copy of the decision of the substantive hearing dated 21 May 2007, the Applicant’s statement from that earlier hearing, the application for restoration and numerous documents provided by the Applicant in support of his application and in relation to his training/clinical practise.
11. Ms Khorassani outlined the background to the case and the decision of the previous panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee.
12. The Panel then heard oral evidence on oath from the Applicant.
13. The Applicant advised the Panel that he takes full responsibility for his actions which he regrets, and which have had a big impact on his life. The Applicant was dismissed from his employment which brought shame on his family, and he lost many friends and colleagues as a result.
14. The Applicant relocated to Ireland where he was permitted to practise, it was confirmed that his manager was aware of the conviction and the HCPC proceedings which had resulted in him being struck from the register. The Applicant explained details of his roles in Ireland and the challenges he overcame in his professional and personal life. He stated that the distance put a strain on his relationship. The Applicant moved back to the UK and has not been employed in any similar roles for around two years.
15. The Applicant stated that he was first employed in a Biomedical Scientist role in 1987 and it is a role which he enjoys and gains a lot of benefit from. The Applicant would like the opportunity to impart his knowledge to less experienced colleagues and feels that he still has a lot to offer the profession. The Applicant was clear that the circumstances which led to him being struck from the register were out of character and will never happen again, and he explained to the Panel what he would do differently should he face similar hardship in the future.
16. The Applicant confirmed that he no longer sold items on eBay.
17. The Applicant asked the Panel to conclude that his fitness to practise is not currently impaired and referred to the fact that his clinical work was not called into question during the original proceedings or since.
18. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor which it has followed in its decision.
The Panel’s approach.
19. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Restoration to the Register dated June 2022 and Article 33 of the Health Professions Order 2001. It reminded itself that it “must not grant an application for restoration unless it is satisfied, on such evidence as it may require, that the applicant:
• meets the general requirements for registration; and
• is a fit and proper person to practise the relevant profession, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to striking off.”
20. It bore in mind (having reminded the Applicant of the same at the start of the hearing) that the burden or establishing that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to practise, rests on the Applicant and it is insufficient for an applicant merely to establish that they meet the requisite standard of proficiency and the other general requirements for registration. It is for the applicant to prove the facts they rely on and persuade the Panel that he should be restored to the Register, and not for the HCPC to prove the contrary.
21. The Panel reminded itself that it should not go behind the findings of the original panel and should consider if the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, taking into account the personal component, the public component and risk of harm.
22. It reminded itself that the issues which a Panel should consider include:
• the matters which led to striking off and the reasons given by the original 2007 panel for imposing that sanction;
• whether the applicant accepts and has insight into those matters;
• whether the applicant has resolved those matters, has the willingness and ability to do so, or whether they are capable of being resolved by the applicant;
• what other remedial or rehabilitative steps the applicant has taken;
• what steps the applicant has taken to keep his or her professional knowledge and skills up to date.
23. It had regard to the guidance given to panels by the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council v Chandra [2018] EWCA Civ 1898 and reminded itself that, when it had considered the matters set out above, it should “step back” and ask whether restoration met the overarching objective of protecting the public, which includes the active pursuit of the following objectives:
• protecting service users;
• declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour; and
• maintaining public confidence in the profession concerned.
24. The Panel reminded itself that if they grant the application for restoration, it may do so unconditionally or subject to the applicant:
• meeting any applicable education and training requirements specified by the Council; or
• complying with a conditions of practice order imposed by the Panel.
The Panel’s Decision
25. The Panel accepted the evidence of the Applicant which demonstrated a good level of insight into his actions. The Panel finds that the Applicant has reflected fully on his misconduct, accepts responsibility for it and has put in place plans to ensure that the misconduct would not be repeated should a similar level of financial hardship arise in the future.
26. The Panel accepted that a number of years have now elapsed since the misconduct and noted that the criminal conviction is now ‘spent’ for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and further noted that there has been no repetition of the misconduct.
27. The Panel considered whether, in light of these findings, the Applicant was a fit and proper person to return to practise and in particular whether he could practise safely, without being tempted to behave dishonestly in the future.
28. The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant had resolved to behave honestly and with integrity in the future but was concerned that the Applicant had not been in a relevant work environment for over two years and that his CPD was out of date. The Applicant will of course need to successfully complete a 60-day period of professional updating prior to admission to the register in accordance with the HCPC standards for return to practice.
29. The Panel considered whether restoration met the overarching objective of protecting the public, including the wider public interest. In particular, it considered whether restoration would promote and maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct.
30. The Panel was satisfied that it would due to the significant passage of time since the Applicant’s misconduct, and the fact that the Applicant has remained in the profession, in the Republic of Ireland, where he has undertaken senior roles without concern. It appeared to the Panel that the Applicant had been rehabilitated.
31. The Panel concluded that the Applicant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired as he has demonstrated remediation, expressed remorse for his actions and does not pose a risk to the public or service users. The Applicant has practised safely within the profession for a number of years and the Panel finds that he should be given the opportunity to re-establish his career after a significant time period since his misconduct.
32. The Panel allows the application for restoration subject to the Applicant complying with the conditions of practice order set out below.
33. The conditions of practice order will be reviewed shortly before its expiry and the Panel observes that a reviewing panel is likely to be assisted by:
a) The attendance of the Registrant;
b) A report from the Registrant’s workplace supervisor dealing with how the Registrant has managed his workload and kept his knowledge up to date.
c) Testimonials dealing with the Registrant’s performance at work or in any other relevant role;
d) Any other material that the Registrant relies upon to demonstrate that he is ready to return to unrestricted practice;
e) Evidence that the Registrant is keeping his CPD up to date which may be demonstrated by registration with the IBMS or equivalent body.
Order
RESTORED WITH CONDITIONS
The Registrar is directed to restore the name of Paul Bennett (the Applicant) to the Biomedical Scientist Part of the Register, but restoration is only to take effect once the Applicant has:
(a) provided the Registrar with the information and declarations required for admission to the Register; and
(b) paid the prescribed restoration fee; and
(c) provided evidence which satisfies the Registrar that the Applicant has successfully completed a 60-day period of professional updating in accordance with the HCPC Standards for Return to Practice.
The Registrar is further directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 6 months from the date upon which the Applicantcommences employment as a Biomedical Scientist, the Applicant must comply with the following conditions of practice:
1. You must notify the HCPC if you undertake employment requiring registration.
2. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 14 days of starting any such role. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.
3. During those 6 months you must meet with your supervisor on a regular basis and invite them to provide a satisfactory report relating to your performance and conduct at the conclusion of that period, which should be made available to any future reviewing panel.
4. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary or capability proceedings taken against you by your employer.
5. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
a. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work requiring registration with the HCPC;
b. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application) with a view to taking a role requiring registration with the HCPC;
and
c. any prospective employer for a role requiring registration with the HCPC; (at the time of your application).
Notes
Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Articles 33(12), (13) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Paul Bennett
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22/06/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Restoration Hearing | Restored with Conditions of Practice |