HCPTS |

Profession: Chiropodist / podiatrist

Registration Number: CH14509

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 26/04/2024 End: 17:00 26/04/2024

Location: Virtual via video conference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Outcome: Hearing has not yet been held

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

As a registered Chiropodist/ Podiatrist (CH14509):

On 27 October 2022 at Newport Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of, on
20 August 2013:

a. possessing extreme pornographic image/ images portraying acts likely
to result in injury to person’s private parts;

b. making indecent photographs/ pseudo-photographs of a child, namely
76 category C images of a child;

c. making indecent photographs/ pseudo-photographs of a child, namely
66 category B images of a child;

d. making indecent photographs/ pseudo-photographs of a child, namely
77 category A images of a child.

2. You failed to notify the HCPC promptly or at all that you were suspended by
your employer on or around 21 January 2022.

3. Your conduct set out in particular 2 above was dishonest.

4. The matters set out in particulars 2 and/or 3 above constitute misconduct.

5. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing dated 19 February 2024 was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address. The notice informed the Registrant of the date, time and venue of the hearing (virtual) and was sent to him within the prescribed 28-day period. Although the electronic link to attend the hearing was not included in the notice of hearing, nor sent to the Registrant in advance of the hearing, the Registrant subsequently made clear in his email of 29 February 2024 to Capsticks LLP (‘Capsticks’), solicitors for the HCPC, that he wished to receive no further correspondence in relation to this case, had no intention of returning to the profession and asked only that the proceedings be conducted in private.

2. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted. The Panel was satisfied that the requirements as to service specified in the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (‘the Rules’) had been sufficiently met in the circumstances in view of the guidance given in Dorairaj v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2762 Admin. at [20]-[24], there being no prejudice to the Registrant as a result of the hearing link not having been sent to him, given the contents of his email of 29 February 2024. Therefore, the Panel decided that there had been valid service of the notice of hearing.

Proceeding in Absence

3. Mr Moran applied for the hearing to be conducted in the absence of the Registrant and made submissions in support of that application. In doing so, he referred the Panel in particular to the Registrant’s email of 29 February 2024.

4. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, who referred to rule 11 of the Rules, to Adeogba v GMC [2016] EWCA Civ 162, to Davies v HCPC [2016] EWHC 1593 (Admin) at [19] and to the HCPTS’s Practice Note, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant (June 2022).

5. The Panel was satisfied that, as required by rule 11, all reasonable steps had been taken to serve the notice of hearing on the Registrant.

6. As a general principle, a registrant who is facing a fitness to practise allegation has the right to be present and represented at a hearing and that in exercising the discretion to proceed in absence, the Panel must strike a balance between fairness to the Registrant and fairness to the wider public interest, ensuring that there is adequate focus on public protection. Fairness to the Registrant is of prime importance, but the overarching statutory objective of regulation is to protect the public. The judgment in Davies v HCPC referred to the importance of a registrant’s engagement with fitness to practise proceedings and showed that a registrant’s deliberate failure to engage with the fitness to practise process should not be allowed to frustrate it.

7. Although there were disadvantages to the Registrant in not attending the hearing, it was clear from his email of 29 February 2024 that an adjournment of the case would be unlikely to lead to his attendance at a later date. He had decided not to attend the hearing and the Panel considered that it was both in his interest and the wider public interest for this case to be disposed of expeditiously.

8. In those circumstances, the Panel decided that it was fair to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Conduct of Hearing: in Public or in Private?

9. The Panel treated the Registrant’s email of 29 February 2024 as including an application for the hearing to be conducted in private. Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules states that, -

(1) At any hearing—

(a) the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing

The Registrant stated that he wished the hearing to be in private to prevent ‘any more damage done to my family and their lives.’ He also referred to the harm that further communications about the case would be likely to cause him.

10. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Moran took a neutral stance on the application, though pointing out various matters relevant to the Panel’s consideration of it. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted.

11. The Panel took into account rule 10(1)(a) and the contents of the HCPTS’s Practice Note, Conducting Hearings in Private (March 2017). The general rule is that fitness to practise proceedings should be conducted in public. The ‘interests of justice’ exception did not apply in the light of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. As to the protection of private life, the Registrant had not made clear what damage would be caused to his family by conducting the hearing in public and, so far as the Registrant’s health was relevant, he had produced no medical evidence to show that significant harm would be caused to his health if the hearing were conducted in public. Further, the members of the Registrant’s family were not persons to whom the ‘private life’ exception applied under rule 10(1)(a). In the circumstances, no sufficient reasons had been given to conduct the hearing in private, whether on grounds of the interests of justice or the private life of any relevant person. For those reasons, the Panel decided to refuse the Registrant’s application.

Amendment

12. Mr Moran applied to amend paragraph 1 of the Allegation to reflect more accurately the offences relied on by the HCPC, as shown by the certified copy of the Certificate of Conviction and the Sentencing Remarks of the judge in passing sentence. The amendment was to paragraph 1 of the Allegation, as follows: -

On 27 October 2022 at Newport Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of, between on 20 August 2013 - 14 January 2022

13. Having received further advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel decided to grant the application. The amendment clarified the details of the conviction in view of the documents before the Panel, and there was no prejudice to the Registrant.

Background

14. The Registrant was employed by the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (‘the Board’) as a Speciality Community Podiatrist for three periods, most recently from 2007 to 16 February 2023.

15. These fitness to practise proceedings arose from a written referral dated 9 June 2022 to the HCPC made on behalf of the Board in relation to his arrest on 14 January 2022 and the subsequent investigation in relation to images in Categories A, B and C.

The Hearing

16. The HCPC relied on two bundles of documents that were placed before the Panel. Mr Moran provided further documents to the Panel, so that it had all the relevant documents before it for its deliberations.

17. Before hearing oral evidence from witnesses called on behalf of the HCPC, the Panel considered an application from Mr Moran to rely on hearsay statements made at two meetings that took place on 13 May 2022 and 2 December 2022. The statements were made by persons who included employees of the Board, a Social Worker from the Safeguarding Team of Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council and a Police Officer from the Online Investigations Team of Gwent Police. The purpose of the meetings was to consider safeguarding measures necessary in view of the criminal proceedings against the Registrant, and their outcome.

18. Having received advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel decided to admit the evidence in those minutes, with the exception of statements concerning possible criminal offences that did not form the subject of offences of which the Registrant was convicted. Those statements were to be excluded from evidence, being irrelevant. As to the other statements in those minutes, the Panel considered that they were of some contextual relevance to paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of the Allegation and they were made by persons who were acting under a professional duty in respect of the subject-matter of each meeting. In all the circumstances, it was fair to allow that evidence to be admitted under rule 10(1)(b) of the Rules.

19. The Panel heard oral evidence from two witnesses on behalf of the HCPC, namely: -

HB – Assistant Clinical Director of Therapies and formerly Head of Podiatry and Orthotics, at the Board;

MR – A Registrations Manager employed by the HCPC.

20. Following their examination in chief, the Panel and the Legal Assessor asked questions of those witnesses.

Decision on Facts

21. The Panel heard oral submissions from Mr Moran. No written representations to the Panel were provided by the Registrant.

22. The Panel also received further advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted.

23. In making its findings, the Panel has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests with the HCPC and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

24. The following are the Panel’s findings of fact.

‘As a registered Chiropodist/Podiatrist (CH14509):’

25. The Panel was satisfied that at the times relevant paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 the Allegation, the Registrant was a registered Chiropodist / Podiatrist.

1. On 27 October 2022 at Newport Magistrates Court, you were convicted of, between 20 August 2013 and 14 January 2022:

a. …

b. …

c. ..

d. ..’

26. The Panel has considered the certified copy of the Certificate of Conviction dated 1 June 2023 and a transcript of the Sentencing Remarks of His Honour Judge D. Williams made on 29 November 2022 at Newport Crown Court.

27. In view of those documents, the Panel has found proved in their entirety the facts alleged in paragraph 1 of the Allegation including subparagraphs a. – d. inclusive.

‘2. You failed to notify the HCPC promptly or at all that you were suspended by your employer on or around 21 January 2022.’

28. The Panel was satisfied that the Board suspended the Registrant from his employment by letter dated 21 January 2022 that was sent to him by recorded delivery. The suspension was stated to have been imposed in view of the seriousness of the allegations arising from his arrest. It was stated not to be a disciplinary penalty but ‘without prejudice’.

29. The Panel was satisfied that in view of Section 9.5 of the HCPC’s written ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics’ (‘the Standards’), the Registrant was under an obligation to inform the HCPC of that suspension as soon as possible following his receipt of that letter.

30. The HCPC relied on the evidence of MR in respect of the Registrant’s alleged failure to inform the HCPC of his suspension. MR’s evidence was that the means open to a registrant to inform the HCPC of such matters included notifying its fitness to practise department by email or by post, as set out on the HCPC’s website, or by telephoning that department on the phone number given on that website.

31. However, MR made clear that his knowledge was confined to contact with the Registrant from and to his department, namely the registration department. He was clear when questioned that he could not say what, if any, communications had been received by the fitness to practise department.

32. In those circumstances, the Panel was not satisfied that the HCPC had established on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant had not informed the HCPC of his suspension.

33. Therefore, the Panel found paragraph 2 not proved.

‘3. Your conduct set out in particular 2 was dishonest.’

34. In view of the Panel’s finding with respect to paragraph 2, it found paragraph 3 not proved.

Decision on Grounds

35. The Panel was satisfied that the facts proved under paragraph 1 constituted a conviction in the United Kingdom for criminal offences. Therefore, this statutory ground of impaired fitness to practise has been established.

36. As the HCPC has not proved its case under either of paragraphs 2 or 3, the statutory ground of misconduct has not been established.

Decision on Impairment

37. Mr Moran submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reference to both the ‘personal’ element and ‘public’ element set out and explained in the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment, (November 2023) and put forward a number of considerations based on the facts and circumstances of this case.

38. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor on the issue of current impairment, which it has accepted.

39. The Panel’s conclusions on the issue of current impairment are as follows.

40. In considering whether or not the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, the Panel examined the ‘personal component’ first.

41. In his Sentencing Remarks, the Judge stated: -

‘It seems as though you searched for child pornography and viewed this material over a period of years. The offending spans between August 2013 and January of this year.’

42. The Panel considered such conduct to be difficult to remediate in view of nature of the offending and the long period of time, more than eight years, over which it had taken place.

43. From the Registrant’s email of 29 February 2024, it was clear that he understood the seriousness of the criminal offences he had committed in the context of registered practice. However, no other evidence of insight has been made available to the Panel by the Registrant and there is no evidence of any remediation of the conduct before the Panel, such as any course of rehabilitation.

44. In all the circumstances, the Panel has concluded that in view of the nature and extended period of the conduct, the Registrant’s lack of insight and failure to take any steps to remediate it, there exists a real risk of a repetition of the conduct by the Registrant. It has been stated both by and on behalf of the Registrant that he proposes to retire from the profession. In the absence of evidence from the Registrant the Panel is unable to ascertain the firmness or otherwise of that intention. Therefore, the Panel considers that there remains a risk of repetition, should the Registrant decided to return to practice. However, if he is to retire this does not mean that in the circumstances the Registrant is fit to practise: see General Optical Council v Clarke [2018] EWCA Civ 1463 at [27] to [29].

45. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reference to the personal component.

46. The Panel next considered the public component. The ‘public’ element includes any risk to members of the public but also requires proper consideration and due weight to be given to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold standards among members of the profession.

47. The Panel refers to the seriousness of the conduct. In his Sentencing Remarks, the Judge stated as follows: -

‘You have pleaded guilty to the four offences for which you fall to be sentenced. Police came to your home on 14 January in order to recover indecent images of children from electronic devices. You declined to provide passwords or PIN codes and you said nothing when you were first interviewed. When an examination was carried out of the devices seized, indecent images were found. You were interviewed again, and again said nothing.

Most of the images were moving images. They were images within all three categories. Some of the children were very young. There was also a child as young as six months amongst the images which you saw, and I have heard a description of one of the category A images recovered involving a four year old child. It seems as though you searched for child pornography and viewed this material over a period of years. The offending spans between August 2013 and January of this year.

The Court must sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Council guidelines. The starting point for offences of this type is a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months with a range of between 6 months and 3 years. There are aggravating factors in your case, namely, the age of the children involved in many of the images and the distress suffered by some of them. Secondly, the period over which the images were made, and that is a significant a decisive aggravating feature in your case, and, as I have said, thirdly, that most of the images recovered were movies.

There is some, if little, mitigation provided by your good character. I have read the Pre-Sentence Report in your case. I am not persuaded to suspend the inevitable sentence of imprisonment. The fact is for year after year after year you viewed these appalling images and behind each image is a real child and real abuse taking place, and the agony of the children involved in that abuse could only be greater if they ever knew that their abuse was being viewed for the sexual gratification of others. The offending is too serious to be dealt with by anything other than a sentence of immediate imprisonment.’

48. The purpose of fitness to practise proceedings arising from a criminal conviction is not to punish a registrant twice but to protect the public who may come to the registrant as patients and to maintain the high standards and good reputation of the profession.

49. In view of the nature, circumstances and gravity of the criminal offences, the Registrant’s actions have brought the profession into disrepute and have undermined public confidence in the profession.

50. The public are entitled to expect that members of the profession conduct themselves with decency. Section 9.1 of the Standards requires of a registered practitioner as follows: -

‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.’

51. The Registrant has acted in breach of this fundamental tenet of the profession.

52. In view of the circumstances as the Panel has found them to be, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the need to declare and uphold standards among members of the profession require a finding of impairment. Therefore, the Panel has decided that the public component of impairment has also been established.

53. For all these reasons, the Panel has decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Decision on Sanction

54. In his submissions on sanction, Mr Moran drew the Panel’s attention to its findings on current impairment and to relevant paragraphs of the HCPC’s written Sanctions Policy, March 2019 (‘the Sanctions Policy’) as to the approach when considering impairment on grounds of criminal conviction for criminal offences concerning children. He referred to the purpose of sanctions and to the proportionality of any sanction, making specific reference to the guidance on Striking Off Orders.

55. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it has accepted. He reminded the Panel that it should bear in mind the submissions for the HCPC on the issue of sanction, but they were just that, submissions and the decision was entirely one for the Panel alone.

56. The primary function of any sanction is to protect the public and the wider public interest. Sanctions are not intended to punish registrants, but to ensure that the public is protected. Inevitably, a sanction may be punitive in effect, but should not be imposed simply for that purpose. In deciding what, if any, sanction to impose, a panel is required to apply the principle of proportionality and in doing so to bear in mind the potential effect of a sanction on the registrant.

57. In the case of a practitioner whose fitness to practise is impaired on the ground of criminal conviction, the purpose of a sanction is not to punish a registrant twice. Its purpose is to protect the public against any risk that the registrant might pose to those who use or need their services and to maintain the high standards and reputation of the profession concerned, to maintain public confidence in the profession and its regulation and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct among members of the profession.

58. The Panel first considered whether there was any evidence in mitigation of the conduct. The Panel acknowledges the Registrant’s plea of guilty in the criminal proceedings, but the Registrant has chosen not to attend this hearing and has produced no evidence, even in the form of a written statement, showing insight, remorse, apology, steps in remediation or any other matter to mitigate his conduct. The Panel has only the Registrant’s email of 29 February 2024, which tacitly acknowledges the seriousness of the offences of which he was convicted but indicates no further insight.

59. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that there are no significant factors that mitigate the underlying conduct.

60. However, there are several aggravating factors. The conduct was repeated over a period of more than eight years. The Registrant has shown no insight, apart from accepting the seriousness of the convictions. He has not apologised. He has demonstrated no remorse and there is no evidence that he has undertaken any rehabilitation or other steps in remediation of his behaviour. The conduct involved possession, for his own sexual gratification, of images that included movies of the sexual abuse of children, some of them extremely young and in distress.

61. In assessing the seriousness of the conduct, the Panel has taken into account the following further matters. The Sanctions Policy states at paragraph 79: -

‘Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession.’

The Sanctions Policy makes particular reference to offences related to indecent images of children (paragraphs 87-89). The Panel refers in particular to paragraph 89, which states: -

‘Any offence relating to indecent images of children involves some degree of exploitation of a child, and so a conviction for such an offence is a very serious matter. In particular, it undermines the public’s trust in registrants and public confidence in the profession concerned and is likely to lead to a more serious sanction.’

62. The Panel has already referred to the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks, which underline the gravity of the offences. The Judge imposed a sentence that included a total custodial period of 12 months, with a Sexual Harm Prevention Order of 10 years and a requirement that they register with Police for a period of 10 years.

63. In deciding what, if any, sanction to impose in these regulatory proceedings, the Panel first considered whether taking ‘no action’ in response to the Registrant’s impaired fitness to practise would be an appropriate outcome. However, such a response would be inappropriate in view of the seriousness of the conduct, the risk of its repetition (see paragraph 44 above) and the continuing risk of damage to public confidence in the profession if the Registrant were to be at liberty to practise, should he so wish, with no restriction on his registration.

64. The Panel considered that mediation would be inappropriate in view of the nature of the case and in any event would not reflect the seriousness of the case.

65. The Panel next considered whether or not a caution order would be a suitable outcome to the case. The Sanctions Policy states at paragraph 101: -

‘A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:

• 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 has undertaken appropriate remediation.’

66. In view of the conclusions that the Panel has already reached on each of those considerations in paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy, a caution order would not be appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The Panel refers again to seriousness of the conduct, the risk of its repetition and the continuing risk of damage to public confidence in the profession if the Registrant were to be at liberty to practise, should he so wish.

67. The Panel next considered whether a conditions of practice order would suffice. Conditions of practice are directed at remedying shortcomings in professional practice. The conduct in question has taken place outside a work setting. Therefore, conditions of practice would be unworkable and incapable of remedying the offending conduct. In view of the seriousness and nature of the criminal convictions, conditions would also be insufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and in any event the Panel could not be confident that the Registrant would comply with any conditions, even if workable conditions could be formulated (Sanctions Policy, paragraphs 106 and 108).

68. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a conditions of practice order would not be the appropriate outcome to the case.

69. The Panel next considered whether or not to impose a suspension order.

70. Paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy states as follows: -

‘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; and

• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.’

71. The Panel has already concluded that the Registrant acted in breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession by failing to ensure that their conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in them and in the profession. Further, in view of the findings already made by the Panel, the Registrant has not demonstrated insight, there is no evidence to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings, and the Panel has been unable to conclude that the issues are unlikely to be repeated.

72. Therefore, the circumstances indicate that a suspension order is unlikely to be an adequate response to the impairment.

73. The Panel also considered whether or not the circumstances would merit a striking off order or whether such an order would be disproportionate.

74. Paragraphs 130 -132 of the Sanctions Policy state: -

‘130. A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving (this list is not exhaustive):

…….

• sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children (see paragraphs … 87–89);

• criminal convictions for serious offences (see paragraphs 80-92);

….

131. 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 process. In particular where the registrant:

• lacks insight;

• continues to repeat the misconduct or, …..; or

• is unwilling to resolve matters.

132. A striking off order has a significant impact on a registrant, and so when a panel imposes a striking off order, it should provide clear and detailed reasoning in its decision on sanction.’

75. The Panel has taken into account the potentially significant impact of a striking off order on the Registrant. A striking off order is a long-term sanction, which (subject to limited exceptions) prevents a registrant from practising for five years: see paragraph 128 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has also borne in mind that an interim suspension order has been in place on the Registrant’s registration since 8 August 2022.

76. However, the Registrant has brought the profession into serious disrepute. He engaged in a pattern of appalling criminal conduct year after year, committing repeated and serious offences, watching what were mostly movies, of children being sexually abused (including very young children and one who was six months old) some of whom were in distress or agony. Such criminal convictions gravely damaged public confidence both in the Registrant as a practitioner and in his profession. He has shown no sign of remorse, has shown very limited insight and demonstrated no readiness to resolve matters by attempting to remediate his conduct.

77. In those circumstances, the Panel concluded that a suspension order would be an insufficient sanction and that a striking off order is necessary because the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.

78. Therefore, the Panel decided to impose a striking off order.

Order

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Ryan B. Norman from the Register.

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 Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order

Application
Mr Moran applied for an interim suspension order of 18 months. Having received advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel decided that the Registrant had been given notice of the possible application for an interim order and concluded that it was fair to consider the application in his absence.

Decision

By Art 31(1), (2) Health Professions Order 2001 (as amended), the Panel has the power to impose an interim conditions of practice order or interim suspension order, for a maximum period of 18 months. The legislation has been drafted so that a striking off order does not take effect immediately; but 28 days after service of the order on the registrant. If the registrant appeals, any interim order that is imposed will continue until after disposal of the appeal.

In view of the findings made by the Panel at the earlier stages of the hearing on the issue of the likelihood of repetition, the Panel was satisfied that there is a real risk of harm to the health, safety or wellbeing of service users if an interim order were not made.
As a result of the Panel’s findings on the issues of impairment (as to the public component) and sanction (the gravity of the misconduct), the Panel considered that public confidence in the profession would likely be seriously damaged if the Registrant were to continue to hold unrestricted registration in the interim period before disposal of any appeal, should he decide to appeal.
There must be good and sufficient reason to impose an interim order. The Panel has conducted a balancing exercise, balancing the need to protect the public and the wider public interest against the consequences that an interim order could have on the Registrant. The Panel noted that he does not propose to practise, although it is right to observe that he might change his mind and decide to do so. However, the Panel concluded that an interim order is required in order to protect the public and the wider public interest.

Interim conditions of practice would not adequately address the risk to members of the public of a repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct or the risk of damage to public confidence in the profession. Interim conditions of practice would not be appropriate or workable and even if they were, the Panel has no confidence that the Registrant would comply with them, were he to decide to return to practice in the interim period.

An interim suspension order is therefore necessary in the circumstances of this case to protect members of the public and is otherwise in the public interest.

In view of the likely time for the disposal of any appeal, the Panel decided to impose an interim suspension order of 18 months

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Ryan B Norman

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
26/04/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Hearing has not yet been held
21/03/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard
09/10/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
04/07/2023	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
10/05/2023	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Adjourned
07/02/2023	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
08/08/2022	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Application	Interim Suspension