Vimal Roy

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.     The Panel was provided with documentation which proved that the Notice of Hearing had been sent by email, to the Registrant’s registered email address, on 3 March 2023. In those circumstances the Panel was satisfied that Service had been complied with in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in absence

2.     The Registrant was not in attendance. He had sent an email to the HCPC on 14 June 2023 stating:

“As I went to look after my mum on emergency leave I couldn’t swap/sort a leave tomorrow so that I will not be attending. But I will be sending the statement.

Sincere apologies [sic] that I cannot attend.”

3.     Mr D’alton submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and that as this was an application to deal with the allegation by consent it was to the Registrant’s advantage to proceed with the consensual disposal hearing in his absence.

4.     The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, which included reference to guidance given in the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ. 162.

5.     The Panel concluded that the Registrant had decided to absent himself from the hearing. He had not requested an adjournment and there was nothing to suggest that he would attend if the hearing were to be adjourned to a later date. He had provided a statement for the Panel to consider in his absence. In all the circumstances the Panel concluded that it was in the public interest to proceed with the consensual disposal hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

Background

6.     The Registrant is a registered radiographer with the HCPC, employed by the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust.

7.     On 21 January 2022 the Registrant attended the Barkingside Magistrates Court and entered a plea of guilty to driving a motor vehicle in a public place on 4 August 2021 after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion in his breath, namely 78mg in 100ml of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to Section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988d Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. He was fined £400 and disqualified for 18 months to be reduced to 18 weeks if, by 16 January 2023, he satisfactorily completed a course approved by the Secretary of State.

8.     On 11 March 2022, the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC confirming his conviction. It followed that his self-referral was made 49 days after his conviction and 146 days after his initial charge.

9.     The Registrant was able to reduce the period of his disqualification to 12 months following the completion of a Drink Drive offenders Course.

10. On 17 June 2022, the allegation was referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee for consideration at a substantive hearing.

11. Further to the referral of these matters to the Conduct and Competence Committee, the Registrant expressed an interest in consensual disposal.

12. On 5 August 2022, Blake Morgan, solicitors instructed to take over conduct of the investigation and preparation for a substantive hearing, sent an initial letter to the Registrant providing him a link to the practice note on disposal by consent.

13. On 8 September 2022, Blake Morgan sent a consensual disposal Pro-Forma allowing the Registrant to outline his application for disposal by consent. The Registrant returned a signed copy of this form with a supporting statement on 20 September 2022 requesting disposal by way of a 12-month caution order. The Registrant admitted the allegation in full and further admitted that by reason of his misconduct and his conviction his fitness to practise is currently impaired.

14. On reviewing the case the HCPC concluded that a 12-month caution order would be a fair and proportionate disposal and scheduled a consensual disposal hearing.

Submissions

15. It was submitted by the HCPC that, in all circumstances, consensual disposal by means of a caution order would be an appropriate means of resolving the allegation. That view was reached on the basis of the following factors:

·       The Registrant had fully engaged with the HCPC and admitted to his conduct from the outset of the investigation;

·       The Registrant had reviewed and made full admissions to the allegation;

·       Whilst the allegation related to serious conduct, it was confined to the Registrant's actions outside of work, and there was no suggestion that his actions in any way detrimentally impacted any service users or colleagues;

·       The Registrant’s employer had undertaken a risk assessment and concluded that they would have no concerns about the Registrant’s ability to continue in practice, providing the Registrant adhered to the order imposed by the Magistrates' Court, and followed any prescribed support programmes;

·       The Registrant had provided evidence of remediation and compliance with the Magistrates’ Court order in the form of:

-        Confirmation of his completion of a Drink Driver Offenders course

·       The Registrant had shown remorse and insight in respect of his conduct, through his actions and the supporting statement provided with his signed Pro-Forma.

16. In considering whether the appropriate level of public protection would be secured, the HCPC took account of the HCPTS Sanctions Policy, noting that a Caution Order is likely to be appropriate where:

-        “The issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;

-        There is a low risk of repetition;

-        The Registrant has shown good insight; and

-        The Registrant had undertaken appropriate remediation.”

17. The HCPC submitted, based on the evidence available, that the risk that the Registrant would repeat his conduct is low. The HCPC submitted that this was an isolated incident and the Registrant has shown good insight and undertaken appropriate remediation.

18. The HCPC therefore submitted that, while a caution order is the least restrictive sanction available, it provides the appropriate level of public protection for the circumstances of this case in line with the Sanctions Policy Guidance.

19. The HCPC also submitted that the consensual order put forward would not be detrimental to the wider public interest and that a Caution Order would be a fair and proportionate disposal of the matter.

20. The Registrant emailed a statement to the HCPC on 15 June 2023 for the Panel to consider. It stated:

“I humbly write this letter to express my deepest apologies for the misconduct I made. Now I am well aware that as a registered HCPC professional I am accountable to society and the professional body.

I have reflected on my drinking and driving offense and assure you that I will never repeat it. I am deeply remorseful for my action and I acknowledged that it is a serious offense and understand that could cause serious harm to other road users and myself. I have undergone rehabilitation courses which have given me great insight and understanding of the impact of drink and driving and I received my driving license back.

I am fortunate to attend some of the spiritual fellowships which helped me to gain insight into myself. Also, I had good counseling with spiritual leaders which helped me to share my emotional feelings and enriched me with positive energy for my future life.

As a Radiographer I am working hard and well with the patients and colleagues. I realize that a drunk driving conviction or disqualification will affect my capacity to get a new job or get into a chosen course or disqualify me from my current job.

I have a family including three kids and I am the main financial contributor to the family. I understand that drinking and driving will cause you to lose your family as well as it will have adverse effects on your family life”.

Decision

21. The Panel carefully considered all the information before it, which included the Memorandum of Conviction, the Registrant’s admission to the entirety of the allegation, confirmation of the Registrant’s completion of the Drink Driver Offenders course, and the Registrant’s written submissions both to the HCPC and to the Panel.

22. The Panel took into account the guidance contained within the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Disposal of Cases by Consent’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel understood that it could conclude the case on an expedited basis, based on the terms of the draft Consent Order. Alternatively, the Panel could reject the proposal and set the case down for a full substantive hearing.

23. The Panel agreed that it was appropriate to deal with the matter by approving the proposal set out in the draft Consent Order. The Panel understood that the Registrant accepted the facts of the allegation, and accepted that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his conviction and misconduct. The Panel took into account the fact that Particular 2 does not allege dishonesty, and is based in lesser culpability, namely a lack of timelines.

24. The Panel was satisfied that the appropriate level of public protection would be secured by the draft Order. This was an isolated incident and the Registrant had evidenced remediation by means of his completion of a drink Drive Offenders course, and detailed reflective statements in which he expressed remorse and demonstrated genuine insight. The Panel was satisfied that the risk that he would repeat his behaviour was very low indeed.

25. The Panel was also satisfied that to deal with the allegation in this way would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. This was an isolated incident in the context of an otherwise unblemished career; the Registrant had remediated his actions by completion of a Drink Driver Offenders course. He had provided evidence of insight in the form of reflective statements submitted to both the HCPC and the Panel. The Panel was satisfied that a reasonable member of the public, in possession of all the facts, would be satisfied that the Registrant’s past behaviour had been dealt with adequately and that he is fit to practise.

26. The Panel was satisfied that a caution order was the appropriate sanction in light of the fact that this was an isolated incident, the risk of repetition is low, the Registrant had shown good insight and he had undertaken appropriate remediation.

27. The Panel was satisfied that a Caution Order for a period of 12 months was both appropriate and proportionate in light of the nature of the allegation, the evidence of remediation and insight, and the Registrant’s good character.

28. Accordingly, the Panel consider that this case is suitable for disposal by way of consent in the way suggested and approves the proposed Order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show the imposition of a Caution Order for a period of 12 months against the name of Vimal Roy from the date this order comes into effect. 

No notes available

History of Hearings for Vimal Roy