Nathan Tapambwa

Preliminary Matters

Application for part-privacy

1. In the course of the hearing, on 6 August 2024, the Registrant referred openly to his health. The Presenting Officer, on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to proceed partly in private when references arose in respect of matters of health or private family matters in relation to the Registrant or any other individual, as permitted by the Practice Note Conducting Hearings in Private last updated in March 2017 and rule 10(1) which provides: “the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interest 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.”

2. The Presenting Officer submitted that it was permitted to depart from the ‘open justice’ principle in circumstances where that was necessary to protect the right to respect for private life of any person referred to in the Practice Note. The Registrant, on his own behalf, also invited the Panel to proceed in this way.

3. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice on the relevant rules and Practice Note, and it balanced the open justice principle with the Registrant’s right to privacy. The Panel was satisfied that there was no other proportionate measure available to protect the relevant persons’ rights to respect for privacy; and that removing public access to those parts of the evidence touching on those matters was justified by a sufficiently compelling reason.

4. Accordingly, the Panel decided to hear in private any references to any of the relevant persons’ health or family life, including the Registrant’s.

Application to amend particular of allegation 1c

5. The Presenting Officer, on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to amend the wording of particular 1c by deleting the word ‘text’ and substituting for it the word ‘WhatsApp’. She explained that the relevant messages were exchanged on the social media platform WhatsApp and were not texts in the form that might be encountered on a mobile phone app. The purpose of the amendment was to correct an imprecise expression and to more closely align the evidence in the exhibit VN/02 exhibited by witness VN. The Presenting Officer explained that the proposed amendment does not alter the character or seriousness of the particular of the allegation.

6. The Registrant, on his own behalf, did not object to the proposed amendment, observing that ‘It makes sense to me’.

7. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to the Practice Note “Case to Answer” Determinations last updated in November 2023 which provides: “A Panel may make minor amendments to an allegation without adjourning their consideration of the case. A minor amendment may be to correct a typographical error or to make a stylistic drafting change which does not affect the substance of the case alleged against the registrant.”

8. The Panel was satisfied that the amendment was made to correct a typographical error only and was made without any unfairness to the Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel allowed the amendment.

Application to admit hearsay evidence

9. On 7 August 2024, the Presenting Officer, on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to admit hearsay evidence in documentary form consisting of:

a. A transcript of WhatsApp messages in exhibit VN/02, and

b. Copies of redacted bank statements in exhibit VN/07.

10. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that it has power to admit evidence much more widely than might be the case in civil proceedings, relying on the terms of rule 10 – 1 (b) and (c) which together provide: (b) subject to sub-paragraph (c) the rules on the admissibility of evidence that apply in civil proceedings in the appropriate court in that part of the United Kingdom in which the hearing takes place shall apply; (c) the Committee may hear or receive evidence which would not be admissible in such proceedings if it is satisfied that admission of that evidence is necessary in order to protect members of the public;

The Presenting Officer’s submissions for the HCPC

11. The Presenting Officer explained to the Panel that the source of both documents was Resident A. Ordinarily, Resident A would be asked to attend in person and give first-hand evidence to explain the importance and relevance of the contents. However, Resident A was elderly. In 2022, Resident A had entered the Stella and Harry Freedman House (the Home) temporarily in a six-week arrangement part-funded by social services as a result of her diagnosis [REDACTED]. Although it was understood that in June 2022 she had full mental capacity, a statement had not been taken from her at the time of her report of her concerns regarding the Registrant. The HCPC had not arranged to obtain a signed statement from her, because her current health condition and frailty was unknown.

12. The Presenting Officer said that there were other sources of direct evidence in relation to the exhibits that supported the underlying reliability and accuracy of each of them. This included direct testimony from witnesses VN and VF who were able to speak to answers made by the Registrant between 6 and 8 June 2022 relating to the records that have become the exhibits. These answers pointed to the Registrant not contesting the content of either exhibit. The Registrant could cross-examine the witnesses and accordingly the exhibits were capable of being tested and were together or separately, not the sole and decisive evidence in regard to the matters that they relate to.

13. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings in England is governed by the Civil Evidence Act 1995, Section 1 which provides: In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay.

14. The Presenting Officer said that the Panel had power to admit the evidence under rule 10 subject to relevance and fairness. The Presenting Officer said that both exhibits were relevant because they helped to establish the facts in the case. She said that the exhibits would not create an injustice for the Registrant since he was aware of the existence of the documentary evidence from a very early stage in the investigation. Any matters that suggested unfairness could be resolved by the Panel in deciding what weight to place on the documentary evidence. In any event, the Presenting Officer said, the Registrant was understood by the HCPC not to contest the authenticity or the contents of the documents.

15. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that in the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin), the court had said that some of the matters for Panels to take into account included:

• whether the statements were the sole or decisive evidence in support of the charges;

• the nature and extent of the challenge to the contents of the statements;

• whether there was any suggestion that the witnesses had reasons to fabricate their allegations;

• the seriousness of the charge, taking into account the impact that adverse findings might have on a registrant’s career;

• whether there was a good reason for the non-attendance of the witnesses;

• whether the regulator had taken reasonable steps to secure their attendance.

16. The Presenting Officer said that there was no reason to suppose that Resident A had fabricated the report that she had made in respect of the Registrant. There was no substantial challenge to the evidence so far as the HCPC was aware. Resident A’s age and medical history provided the basis for a good reason for her not being called as a witness. The Presenting Officer also reminded the Panel of the guidance in El Karout v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2019] EWHC 28 (Admin), emphasised that a Panel must first establish the admissibility of any hearsay before it and then, if admitted, decide on what weight the hearsay should be given. These were separate stages of consideration, and the second step could only follow if the first has resulted in the evidence being found admissible at all.

17. The Presenting Officer also said that there were no other records of WhatsApp messages in the relevant thread of exchanges that were now available.
The Registrant’s submissions

18. The Registrant, on his own behalf,

• did not object to the redacted bank statements in exhibit VN/07 being admitted, but

• did object to the transcript of WhatsApp messages in exhibit VN/02 being admitted.

19. The Registrant said that he had no substantial reason to object to exhibit VN/07 because he had an explanation for the contents which would emerge in his own testimony.

20. The Registrant said that he objected to the transcript of messages in exhibit VN/02 because they were incomplete. There was an important context to the messages which was explained in the other messages associated with the excerpts produced by the HCPC.

21. The Registrant told the Panel that he was now unable to provide the balance of the messages in the relevant thread. The phone which had contained his WhatsApp app had been hacked. Once he had recovered his account, the thread had been deleted. Accordingly, the Registrant said, he was unable to properly answer and contextualise the messages because he did not have the means to do so effectively. Were the Panel to admit the transcript, he would be denied a true opportunity to explain the messages in a way that supported his case.

22. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice including what the court had said in The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v The Nursing and Midwifery Council and Jozi [2015] EWHC 764 (Admin). It recognised that it had a duty to ensure that appropriate evidence was presented in order to avoid any Allegation being lost or under-charged. The Panel must avoid the appearance of being biased against the Registrant or in favour of the HCPC in following its duty.
Issues in admissibility of the exhibits

23. The Panel observed that a degree of difficulty had emerged in determining the admissibility of the exhibits, despite the Registrant’s approach to one of them, exhibit VN/07, the bank statements.

24. The primary source of the exhibits had not been made available as a witness. The Panel was invited to speculate that her age and medical history gave some ground to her absence and by extension to the absence of a signed statement from her.

25. In that regard, the Panel was conscious of the evidence presented by witness VF that Resident A had been conflicted about making a report against the Registrant whom she had regarded as a trusted friend and ally in dealing with her medical condition. For those reasons, the Home had not taken a statement from Resident A in June 2022 or afterwards. The HCPC decision not to pursue the possibility of taking a signed statement at a later date in the course of its investigation was regrettable. The reasons for that decision was, in the Panel’s view, not made apparent to the Panel.

26. The Panel recognised that it could, if necessary, ask the HCPC to obtain a statement from Resident A or to provide the medical or other basis for that being impractical. It might also be possible to ask the HCPC to obtain any statement taken by the police in the course of their criminal investigation. The bank statements had, witness VF said, been obtained in redacted form through the police portal after the police enquiry had been discontinued.

27. Witness VF had told the Panel that he had been supplied with the transcript of WhatsApp messages by Resident A. He said that Resident A had printed off the transcript. However, Resident A had been assisted by an adviser in assisting with the Home and the police investigation. The source of the transcript was therefore more likely to be the adviser than Resident A. Witness VF said that he had not altered the transcript. The transcript, however, did appear to show changes from how the message must have appeared in the app form.

28. Witness VF told the Panel that he had received it in the form that it now appeared in exhibit VN/02. He did not know who, why or when the changes were made. The redactions were unimportant to witness VF for his purposes.

29. The Panel observed that witness VN had signed a statement of truth in which she exhibited the documents. In fact, as she agreed in a preliminary stage of her evidence in relation to admissibility (see below) these were not her exhibits. Witness VF suggested that he ought to have exhibited them, but the Panel understood from him that he was only a custodian of the documents. The person who created the redacted document was properly the person to exhibit them in the Panel’s view.

30. The Panel recognised that the exhibits are representative of the facts in issue – the basis of the case against the Registrant. These were essential in order to prove that the facts in the case are more likely than not to be true. Proof of the messages and proof of the financial transactions were the foundation of the case that the Registrant faces.

31. The Panel considered that the issues were not easily resolved. It was important the Panel fulfilled its obligations to ensure that necessary evidence was not artificially discarded while avoiding any appearance of bias in the mind of the informed and fair-minded observer.

Further procedure

32. Accordingly, before coming to a conclusion, the Panel invited the Presenting Officer, on behalf of the HCPC, to call witness VN as a witness solely in relation to the preliminary issue of the origin and safe keeping in original-as-received form of the transcript in exhibit VN/02. The Registrant agreed to this step.

33. Witness VN was able to explain to the Panel that she had seen the original messages on Resident A’s mobile phone and the entries in the exhibit were the same as the entries in the transcript.

34. This, and other evidence in answer to Panel questions, did not immediately assist the Panel to resolve the issues of authenticity and chain of custody. It was not controversial that someone, who was not witness VN or VF, had changed the messages from their original form. The date and timestamp on the transcript suggested 6 June 2022. The messages were timestamped in three groups for a purpose that was unclear. The potential for more extensive changes appeared to be an important issue for the Registrant.

35. The Registrant, on his own behalf, asked witness VN about the printout. The Registrant said that the printout had been available to witness VN in the course of an interview that she conducted with him. The Registrant asked if the focus of her questions only related to three entries on the transcript (the three entries referred to in particular 1 c).

36. Witness VN said that she had asked the Registrant in the interview if the three messages in the transcript were an accurate reflection of the communication, not just the printout, and that the Registrant had said ‘yes’.

37. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that this passage concerning the interview made the issue of the admissibility of the transcript redundant.

38. The Registrant had introduced the authenticity of the transcript into his own evidence. By asking a question that obtained an answer linking the originality and accuracy of the transcript to an informal admission made against his own interests, the transcript had at once become evidence introduced by the Registrant. This may not have been intended by him. The Panel, having been careful to limit this part of the enquiry, could not deny itself evidence which had legitimately emerged in the course of it, perhaps more widely than had been anticipated.

Further procedure and Panel decisions

Bank statements in exhibit VN/07

39. The Panel decided to admit the bank statements evidence contained in exhibit VN/07. The bank statements had been altered to the extent that large parts of the documents had been concealed. That raised issues relating to the weight that could later be placed on the documents. However the statements were not the subject of a substantial challenge.

40. The Panel decided that exhibit VN/07 was admissible having regard to the obligations that it had to ensure a fair hearing in the interests of protecting the public.

Transcript in exhibit VN/02

41. The Panel decided to admit the transcript evidence contained in exhibit VN/02. The transcript had already become evidence in the case and the point at which admissibility could be decided had passed by virtue of that. The transcript had self-evident and as yet unexplained alterations. These and other matters relevant to the transcript were issues relating to the weight that could later be placed on the transcript.

42. The Panel decided that exhibit VN/02 was admissible having regard to the obligations that it had to ensure a fair hearing in the interests of protecting the public.

Background

43. On 1 October 2020, the Registrant commenced employment as a Senior Specialist Physiotherapist at the Stella and Harry Freedman House (‘the Home’). The Home is owned and managed by Jewish Care and is one of the residential homes that form The Betty and Asher Loftus Centre. The Home is a 120-bed nursing home on three floors that provides care for people with nursing needs or dementia and those who require end of life care. It also has some assisted living flats.

44. On 6 June 2022, Resident A who was at that time a temporary resident at the Home informed witness VF, the Registered Home Manager, that she had concerns about payments and loans she had made to the Registrant from her bank account.

45. Allegedly, Resident A allowed witness VF to view WhatsApp messages on her phone received from the Registrant. These were copied to a transcript, exhibit VN/02. Resident A then informed witness VF that she had been paying the Registrant for private physiotherapy sessions. She also said that the Registrant had asked for, and received, loans from her.

46. The Registrant was suspended pending a workplace investigation into potential gross misconduct. Witness VN, the Specialist Manager for Residential Services Operations at the Home, was appointed as the Investigation Officer.

47. The matter was also reported to the Metropolitan Police as a potential fraud

48. As part of witness VN’s investigation, she was given copies of bank statements from Resident A which appeared to support the contention that Resident A had made a number of bank transfers to the Registrant for private physiotherapy sessions.

49. Witness VN’s investigation also revealed evidence of bank transfers by Resident A to the Registrant with the reference ‘holiday’. These have been incorporated in an exhibit VN/07 and point to payments being made on 13 May 2022 for £2,350; and 19 May 2022 for £150.

50. The investigation revealed evidence of transfers of money from the Registrant to Resident A on 27 May 2022 for £1,000, and 24 June 2022 for £1,500.

51. The transcript of messages in exhibit VN/02 allegedly revealed that the Registrant sent the following WhatsApp messages to Resident A:

• "You're more a friend than a patient";

• "You are a great sister from another mother"; and

• "Just know I'm not a stranger. I'm family in a way".

52. On 30 June 2022 the Registrant was interviewed as part of the Home’s investigation. The record of the interview has been exhibited as VN/03. Allegedly he made a number of admissions.

53. Witness VN concluded in an Investigation Report dated 8 September 2022 that the matter should be considered at a disciplinary hearing. That report is exhibited as VN/08. Before a disciplinary hearing could be held, the Registrant is said to have resigned from the Home.

54. On 14 April 2023, the HCPC received a referral from the Registrant’s employer, Jewish Care.

Evidence

55. Witness VF gave evidence under affirmation on 7 and 8 August 2022. He said that his signed statement dated 19 October 2023 was true and accurate. The Panel admitted the statement as his evidence in chief.

56. Witness VF explained that Resident A had entered the Home for a period of six weeks care. Resident A had benefited from this. Her general health, appetite and mobility had significantly improved, as had her outlook.

57. Witness VF said that Resident A had full mental capacity and was free to move around the Home as she wished. She was able to leave the Home without restriction. She managed her own affairs. Her period of residence was coming to an end at the beginning of June 2022. The funding for her stay had been exhausted and arrangements had been made for Resident A to leave the Home and return to other accommodation.

58. Resident A had been anxious and troubled at the prospect of leaving the Home. She felt she had been well cared for and supported there.

59. Witness VF said that on 6 June 2022 he had come on duty and as usual began a tour of the floors in the building. He met Resident A on the second floor where she had accommodation. Resident A appeared to be troubled. Witness VF invited her to join him in his office on the ground floor to discuss the issue. At that point, witness VF said he became aware that Resident A had been making payments to the Registrant from her bank account. The payments were for additional physiotherapy at £70 per half hour session. In addition, loan payments had been made by her to him.

60. Witness VH said that Resident A was reluctant to discuss the issue because she felt conflicted. She had been very friendly with the Registrant until recently when the Registrant had become cold and distant. Resident A associated this with her requests for return of funds. She was upset and did not wish to get the Registrant into trouble. However, she was concerned that her resources had been depleted which had issues for her ability to pay for any further accommodation or for her move to other accommodation.

61. It emerged that the loan payments were requested, allegedly, by the Registrant to pay for a holiday overseas to visit his mother, taking his children with him and to help pay to replace a broken mobile phone.

62. Witness VF took the opportunity to view WhatsApp messages on Resident A’s telephone. He then took possession of a transcript of the messages which either Resident A or he (as he said later) had forwarded to his own email address and printed them out. Witness VF then passed the printout to Witness VN to assist in her investigation of the matter.

63. Witness VF’s concern was that it was a serious breach of professional boundaries for an employee to receive cash payments or loans from a resident. Further, while additional therapy for residents can be arranged privately, either by the resident or their family, and can be commercially paid for, it is important that the manager knows about these arrangements.

64. Witness VF said that any additional physiotherapy for a resident such as Resident A, would require to be recorded in the residents’ care notes to allow for continuity of care and the complete picture for other staff. This had not been done in the case of Resident A. He said that he did not know about the commercial arrangement.

65. Witness VF said some of the WhatsApp messages, in particular those which now appear in particular 1.c were concerning and suggested a serious breach of professional boundaries by the Registrant. Witness VF said that the content of the messages was inappropriate in a professional therapeutic relationship. Potentially, this was also gross misconduct.

66. In answer to the Panel’s questions, Witness VF explained that Resident A had been assisted in accessing the WhatsApp messages on 6 June 2022 by her close friend who did not reside at the Home. Another friend may also have been involved. Witness VF was unable to say:

• what assistance these persons had provided,

• what input they had had in Resident A’s reports,

• what influence they may have had in shaping the reports, if any,

• why the WhatsApp messages appeared to be grouped in three timestamp phases and

• whether the messages were sequential or had been rearranged to support the workplace investigation.

67. In response to a question by the Registrant, Witness VF was insistent:

• that he had personally emailed the messages to himself

• that he had not interfered with them in any way

• that he had not altered their order or contents

• they appeared in the transcript unaltered in the same form in which they had appeared on Resident A’s phone

Adjournment

68. On 9 August 2024, the Panel adjourned the case because of the absence of a witness for the HCPC, witness VN.

69. Witness VN had agreed to return to give evidence in chief on 9 August 2024. Following several unsuccessful attempts to contact her by phone, email and through her employer, she submitted an email at 13:51 stating:

I am sorry that I was not able to attend the hearing today. I have had competing priorities with my clinical responsibilities and therefore no longer have capacity to attend hearing today. As you know I blocked out protected time on Wednesday to complete this, but unfortunately there were extended delays from your end and this was not possible to achieve within the time I had left,

I am willing to accommodate this on Monday @ 3pm instead. Please can you kindly send me a Teams invite so it gets into my calendar and I have the updated link.

My apology for any inconvenience caused.

70. The Presenting Officer, on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to adjourn the hearing until 3 pm on Monday 12 August 2024. The Presenting Officer pointed out that Witness VN had apologised for her non-attendance and had provided an explanation.

71. The Presenting Officer said that it would be unfair to approach the reasons offered by witness VN with scepticism. She was a significant and an important witness. Although, the proposed time for evidence resuming may only be enough to conclude examination-in-chief, the case will inevitably require to be part-heard in order to allow the Registrant an opportunity to present his case. Witness VN was, the Presenting Officer said, likely to be an important witness for the Registrant.

72. The Registrant, on his own behalf, objected to the adjournment. He said that witness VN’s excuse for not returning to give evidence had not been validated.

73. The Panel accepted the legal assessor’s advice. The Panel had regard to the Practice Note Postponements and Adjournments of Proceedings updated in June 2022 which refers to the factors in CPS v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108:

• the general need for expedition in the conduct of proceedings;

• where an adjournment is sought by the HCPC, the interest of the registrant in having the matter dealt with balanced with the public interest;

• where an adjournment is sought by the registrant, if not granted, whether the registrant will be able fully to present his or her case and, if not, the degree to which the ability to do so is compromised;

• the likely consequences of the proposed adjournment, in particular its likely length and the need to decide the facts while recollections are fresh;

• the reason that the adjournment is required. If it arises through the fault of the party asking for the adjournment, that is a factor against granting the adjournment, carrying weight in accordance with the gravity of the fault. If that party was not at fault, that may favour an adjournment. Likewise if the party opposing the adjournment has been at fault, that will favour an adjournment;

• the history of the case, and whether there have been earlier adjournments, at whose request and why.

74. The Panel also had regard to Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 221 including that the guiding principle in an application to adjourn was whether the trial would be fair in all the circumstances if it went ahead; and whether the refusal of an adjournment would make the resulting trial unfair, if so an adjournment should ordinarily be granted regardless of inconvenience to the other party or other court users, unless that were outweighed by injustice to the other party that could not be compensated for.

75. In this case the Panel observed that witness VN was a very important witness for the HCPC. Proceeding without her was likely to have a materially disadvantageous impact on the HCPC’s case. The Panel was troubled that witness VN had not responded to telephone calls and emails from the HCPTS until after her employer was contacted.

76. The Panel recognised that the Registrant was not at fault. In the Panel’s view, no criticism can be made of him for the time taken to reach this stage of the hearing or for the near certainty of another adjournment application being made. The Panel considered however that this adjournment was relatively short in nature and taking all factors into account, it would have been unfair to the HCPC to continue the hearing without an opportunity being made to hear witness VN’s evidence. In the Panel’s view, although regrettable, it could not identify a prejudice to the Registrant.

77. Taking into account the substantial likely adverse impact of refusing the application to adjourn and the fact that the HCPC was not itself at fault, the Panel decided to agree to adjourn the hearing until 3 pm on Monday 12 August 2024, or at an earlier time that day if it can be arranged.

Monday 12 August 2024.

78. Witness VN affirmed and explained that her signed statement dated 26 October 2023 was true and accurate. This was adopted as her evidence in chief.

79. Witness VN joined Jewish Care on 16 May 2022 as the Specialist Manager for Residential Services Operations. She is a registered mental health nurse. Her duties are administrative including the monitoring of quality and safety standards, updating policies and supporting the Registered Managers. She reports to the Head of Care and is still in this role. Witness VN performs HR duties including recruitment and staff retention and also undertaking workplace disciplinary investigations and procedures.

80. Witness VN did not know the Registrant well and had met him only once prior to the disciplinary investigation process which began with Resident A’s report to witness VF of having loaned money to the Registrant on 6 June 2022. The Registrant was already in post. He provided physiotherapy throughout the Home. The Registrant had a very good clinical and personal reputation at the Home. Accordingly, the report which was passed to her for further action came as a shock, amounting to financial abuse of a resident and breaching professional boundaries.

81. Witness VN spoke personally to Resident A on two occasions, 6 and 8 June 2022, each time accompanied by witness VF. She recalled that Resident A had felt personally conflicted in reporting the matter. She had got on well with the Registrant and did not want to see him put out of a job. However, she had become confused by the financial transactions requested by the Registrant.

82. The Registrant had asked for payment in advance for private physiotherapy sessions. Resident A begun to lose track of what she was owed regarding further treatments as a result. When she enquired about this with the Registrant, he became cold and unfriendly which made her feel guilty and uncertain.

83. Witness VN observed that the care notes contained only references to physiotherapy provided in regular working hours midweek. There was no record of physiotherapy sessions carried out outside of those hours contracted to the Home such as at weekends. She observed that she would have expected there to be a record of additional physiotherapy. This would provide a complete picture of treatment undertaken, progress, and allow for continuity of care.

84. Witness VN said the Resident A’s report was that she had felt pressured and obligated to lend money to the Registrant. He had told her that he could not afford further payments for a holiday overseas to see his mother. It had been put in a way that invited her to offer the money, which she did.

85. Resident A had been anxious about the prospective end of her stay at the Home. However, in the course of speaking to healthcare assistants as part of her investigation, witness VN learned that the stress and anxiety of having been prompted to lend money and the loss of control over repayments had caused her to lose sleep.

86. Witness VN said that Resident A had shown her proof of the loans and advance payments to the Registrant on her phone banking app. Witness VF recognised the payments and the references again when she was given the redacted bank statements in exhibit VN/07 which witness VF had obtained from the police portal after their investigation had resolved. Witness VN recalled that the Registrant had asked for £2,300 to assist with holiday payments and £150 had been towards a replacement mobile phone. Witness VN identified the entries shown on exhibit VN/07 as being accurate representations of what she had seen on Resident A’s banking app.

87. Witness VF said that on 6 June 2022, Resident A had shown her the message thread with the Registrant on her phone WhatsApp app. She read them and was concerned that it identified what appeared to be an abuse of a resident by obtaining money from her. This was irregular and fell outside of the staff handbook. In any event, it was, in her view, a breach of professional boundaries by the Registrant. The consequences of such a breach for a resident can be impactful. Witness VF said that the movement from care provider to borrower can cause a professional to lose objectivity of professional detachment which can cloud professional judgement to the resident’s detriment.

88. Three entries in particular were observed by Witness VN which caused her concern. These were:

1. "You're more a friend than a patient",

2. "You are a great sister from another mother",

3. "Just know I'm not a stranger. I'm family in a way".

89. Witness VN regarded these entries as a significant departure from the necessary professional relationship as caregiver and safe guarder for a resident. The entries represented a breach of professional boundaries by the Registrant. The entries demonstrated an absence of professional detachment and distance that is necessary in a therapeutic role.

90. Witness VN said that the entries appeared in a thread of messages downloaded from Resident A’s phone. These appeared in exhibit VN/02. They had been provided to her by witness VF on 8 June 2022. Witness VN said that the message contents were unaltered from the messages that she observed for herself on Resident A’s phone two days earlier.

91. Witness VN said that as a result of the interviews and materials obtained between 6 and 8 June 2022, she formally decided that it was necessary to refer the matter to HR with a recommendation for disciplinary action. She said that on 8 June 2022, she had interviewed the Registrant personally at the Home. He seemed not to appreciate the seriousness of his alleged breaches of boundaries. He seemed unconcerned and untroubled. He did not offer an apology to Resident A.

92. Witness VN allowed the Registrant to read the message in exhibit VN/02. He did so for ten minutes. He acknowledged to her that the messages were genuine and formed part of the messages exchanged between him and Resident A.

93. The Registrant had accepted that he had borrowed £2,500 from Resident A. He had begun to make repayments. The records in exhibit VN/07 demonstrated, she said, that the Registrant had made a payment of £1000 on 27 May 2022. She said that she understood that the Registrant had made a final repayment of £1500 after she had recommended disciplinary action on 8 June 2022.

94. Witness VN formally suspended the Registrant from his duties pending the outcome of her recommendation on disciplinary action. The Registrant resigned from his post later. However, she said that if he had not done so, the matter would have been referred to a workplace disciplinary process for gross misconduct.

Cross-examination

95. The Registrant invited witness VN to agree that the messages were incomplete and did not reflect the messages that Resident A had sent to him. She accepted that there were other messages but they were not part of the focus of her enquiry.

96. Witness VN accepted that both Resident A and the Registrant had told her that they had met before Resident A had entered the Home and when she was a hospital patient.

97. Witness VN accepted that it was conventional at the Home for Residents or their families to arrange and pay for private treatment over and above what was provided at the Home. This should have been, but, she learned, was not always recorded in the care notes.

98. The Presenting Officer closed the case for the HCPC. The case was adjourned for lack of time, to allow the Registrant to open his case and to conclude the hearing on 24 and 25 October 2024.

Resumed hearing on 24 October 2024

99. The hearing resumed on Thursday 24 October 2024 and the Panel received a written statement and heard evidence from the Registrant.

The Registrant’s evidence

100. The Registrant referred to his written statement. He told the Panel about his career history. He explained how he had met Resident A at the Home and had begun therapy, which he said had been successful. He said he had no premeditation about the money and Resident A, with whom he had developed a good relationship, had transferred the money to his account without his knowledge or consent. The Registrant said the investigation by the Home was not properly carried out and they had suspended him without proper processes. He said he had reflected on what happened and had decided to resign from the Home. The Registrant said he had been professional and probably too empathetic.

101. The Registrant said he had stayed within professional boundaries. He said he had nothing further to add regarding the allegation beyond what he said in his written statement.

Cross examination

102. The Registrant said he had first met Resident A in about 2019 in hospital receiving treatment, and had started work in the Home in 2021. He said he had a good relationship with Resident A, as he did with all residents.

103. As regards allegation 1a, the Registrant said he had private sessions with Resident A but he could not recall how many. He said the Home had no process in place regarding private treatment for residents and the Home kept no records. The Registrant said that he did not need to seek permission of the Home Manager to conduct private treatments and that there had been no policy or guidelines at the time.

104. The Registrant said that the staff, managers and nurses all knew private therapy went on and that Resident A had sought private treatment from him. That included the Home Manager, witness VF, with whom the Registrant said he had discussed private treatments. The Registrant said it was him who had raised the lack of systems in place in the Home, and he said that that witness VF was lying when he said he did not know about the private treatments the Registrant had undertaken.

105. The Registrant said he accepted the Code of Conduct was in place at the Home, but it said nothing about private treatment or care. He was taken to paragraph 4 of the Code regarding client finance which requires express permission of the manager. The Registrant said the Code was followed and that all staff knew about private appointments. He said he had recorded them all in the Resident’s care plan, but not the payment details, and he understood that the sessions were also recorded on the Home’s systems. He said that witness VF was seeking to protect the Home when he had said in his evidence that there were no such records.

106. The Registrant said he had no written contract with Resident A as it was documented in the daily notes. The weekend sessions were £70 to include travelling costs and were reflected in a number of entries in the bank statements. The Registrant said that the statements seemed correct both as to cost and frequency. He said he had given Resident A his personal mobile telephone number so that she could contact him when he was not in the Home. He accepted that was not normal practice, but Resident A had asked for him to provide therapy.

107. The Registrant said that he did not accept that Resident A was vulnerable, and she had full capacity. The Registrant said that he did not consider that he had breached professional boundaries, but he had learned that it had been a mistake to give out his personal number. [REDACTED]

108. The Registrant said Resident A was the only patient in the Home who he was treating privately but he had undertaken one consultation with one other resident. He did not recall telling witness VN that he had three private patients at the Home.

109. The Registrant denied allegation, particular 1b) and denied that he had borrowed money or breached professional boundaries. As regards the WhatsApp messages, the Registrant said he had never asked Resident A for a “soft loan”. He said there was “just a conversation” which included reference to the price of his holiday and that he had said he was stressed about paying for it. He said he could not explain Resident A’s interpretation of the conversation and why she had said “how much”. The Registrant said he never had a conversation with Resident A about money and that he had actually told her not to transfer the money. He said he had been angry that she had transferred the money.

110. The Registrant said that once he had received the money from Resident A, he then had to arrange a loan to repay it as the money had “gone” from his account, being the balance due for his holiday. He reiterated that he had not asked for the money and he did not accept it. He said that he was in shock when it was received, and he had not thought to tell the manager, witness VF, but he accepted that he should have done so.

111. The Registrant denied any conversation with Resident A about repaying money and he said that some of the messages were not his. He said witness VN had not disclosed all of the WhatsApp messages to him during the investigation by the Home. He denied some of the messages had been sent by him. He recalled a discussion but not specific messages and said that Resident A and him had just had “general conversations.” He said he did not respond to many of the messages and that he told Resident A that she should not send him money, but he accepted that he had not sent a message to Resident A to tell her not to do so.

112. The Registrant said in his written statement that as a result of the issues he “hated” the Home and Resident A. He said the whole thing had “shattered his life” and the whole thing had been very unfortunate. He said that he now hopes Resident A was having a good life and that he had moved on. The Registrant said that he doubted that Resident A had ever made any complaint about him and it had all been made up. He reiterated that the investigation was not done properly and that he had never requested or accepted any money. He had paid it all back, as was clear from the bank statements. None of the payments were prepayments for Resident A’s physiotherapy or had anything to do with his children.

113. The Registrant denied ever saying to witness VF “who told you” when he received the letter suspending him, he said that was a lie. The Registrant denied telling witness VN during the investigation that he had made arrangements with Resident A to borrow money for a holiday, or that he had agreed all the WhatsApp messages. He said he had been “relaxed” in that interview and that was not what he had said.

114. The Registrant accepted that he had made the comments to Resident A as alleged at particular 1 c. With hindsight he said he probably should not have said those things as he had been “too compassionate” and had been too emotionally attached. He said if being over compassionate was a breach of professional boundaries, he could not deny that.

115. As regards the mental distress apparently caused to Resident A, the Registrant said he had left her on good terms. He said he was sorry if she had been harmed and he did not blame her for anything.

Closing Submissions

116. The Presenting Officer for the HCPC provided a detailed written submission setting out the closing submissions. She invited the Panel to accept all the evidence heard from the HCPC witnesses and to find the allegation proved.

117. The Registrant told the Panel that he had taken time to read the HCPC submissions. He said that the allegation is not true and the evidence for the HCPC was not credible, was inconclusive and all based on what they had heard from Resident A. He said that he had been professional, the Home had no systems and there had been a poor and incomplete investigation. There was no proof of the after care and he said he was a conscientious physiotherapist who had provided good care throughout his career and wanted to continue provide a gold standard of care to clients. He said the resident had come to the Home for rehabilitation and she was not on end-of-life care. He said the witnesses had limited knowledge of the Home.

Decision on Facts

118. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He reminded it that the burden of proof lies entirely with the HCPC and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. He referred it to the guidance on the assessment of evidence in the cases of Suddock v NMC 2015 EWHC 3612 (Admin) and R.(on the application of Dutta) v The General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin). He advised the Panel to exercise caution in the assessment of the hearsay evidence.

119. The Panel turned to the allegation and considered each particular in turn, mindful of the central issue of professional boundaries in the stem of particular 1.

As a registered Physiotherapist (PH95484):

1. Between January and May 2022, you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Resident A, in that:

a. you entered into financial transactions with Resident A for private physiotherapy sessions on or around the dates set out in Schedule A without the permission of the Registered Manager. – Proved in part

120. The Panel considered the evidence it heard from witnesses VF and VW about from the investigatory interview with the Registrant. The Panel also considered the Home’s Code of Conduct. The Panel did not have sight of the care records, but witness VN told the Panel she had considered the records and there was nothing in them to indicate the private physiotherapy sessions which took place. It is clear that there were no formal procedures in place in the Home to note the arrangement of or to record private arrangements, as confirmed by witness VN.

121. The Registrant does not deny carrying out the private sessions, but his evidence was that the management and the staff were all well aware of the private sessions. He did not dispute that he received payment for those sessions.

122. The bank statements show regular payments of £70 to the Registrant from Resident A, and that is consistent with the evidence of the Registrant. The Panel found that there was consistent and undisputed evidence that private sessions took place on the dates alleged, and were paid for by Resident A. It found that part of this allegation proved.

123. Some direct evidence about, knowledge of and permission for the sessions came from witness VF, the Registered Manager. The Panel found that his evidence was not clear or cogent as to his knowledge of private sessions that took place in the Home. He seemed to know in a general sense that private sessions happened, and he said in his investigatory interview with witness VN that he would “normally” know about such arrangements. His live evidence did not cast any further light on the issue. The Panel found his evidence somewhat defensive and lacking in detail.

124. The policy in the Home states as to “Client finances” as follows: “Employees must not enter into or undertake any financial transactions with or on behalf of clients unless this is a formally agreed part of their job. This includes making purchases, paying bills or depositing money into an account. Exceptions should only be made when the express permission of the manager of the resource (or his / her nominated deputy) has been given.”

125. The issue in dispute is whether there was “permission” for the sessions. The Panel gave that word its ordinary and natural meaning. Permission may may be active and / or passive. The Panel found that witness VF’s evidence was not cogent, and he was ambivalent, and it was not clear in the evidence as to whether or not he knew about the sessions. The Registrant was emphatic that all the staff knew about the private sessions, including the manager, witness VF. There was no specific policy governing private therapy sessions and there were no records, one way or the other, in respect of these sessions.

126. The Panel concluded that the evidence indicates that express permission was not given to the Registrant by the Registered Manager. The Registrant was therefore in breach of the policy at the Home.

127. However, the word “express” is not what is alleged. Mindful of the burden of proof and that permission may be tacitly or passively, given, the Panel concluded that there was a lack of sufficient, cogent evidence to prove the absence of “permission,” there was a lack of evidence that permission had not be given.

128. The Panel therefore found this particular provided in part as to the sessions and the financial transactions, but found it not proved as to the alleged lack of permission to do so.

129. The Panel was mindful of the HCPC Practice Note on Professional Boundaries and concluded that the Particular, so far as found proved, was not a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

Particular - 1b)In or around May 2022, you requested and / or accepted a loan from Resident A for £2,500. – Proved

130. The Panel considered the bank statements which contain both narratives and figures. These entries total, at least, the sum alleged and there is a narrative of “loan” by the Registrant. The Registrant clearly received the money into his bank account, and he accepted that in his evidence. However, his evidence was that those payments were not sought by him and that he did not therefore “accept” any payments. The bank statements are credible, reliable and cogent evidence of the transfer of the sums alleged to have been paid by Resident A to the Registrant, and later repaid by him. The Panel found the monies as alleged were paid by Resident A to the Registrant.

131. Was it a loan and was it “accepted” by the Registrant? - the Registrant uses the word “loan” in his investigatory interview with witness VN and in the WhatsApp messages the Panel has seen. The WhatsApp messages between the Registrant and Resident A, read fairly and reasonably, are consistent with the lending of money from Resident A to the Registrant, with both parties repeatedly using the term “loan”.

132. What the money was for is not relevant, albeit that holidays are frequently mentioned. Several figures and payment arrangements are discussed in the WhatsApp messages between the Registrant and Resident A. At one point three loans and a sum of £4,000 is mentioned. The Panel noted that Resident A also refers in one message to the Registrant to being “uncomfortable” with the payment arrangement as it “changes the dynamic patient / friend relationship.” The Panel found that the money paid was a loan.

133. The Registrant offered various explanations as to what the money was specifically for, but that was not relevant to this allegation. Significantly, the Registrant did not dispute that he received monies from Resident A, and that he repaid the sum alleged. He accepted that he used the words “soft loan” in the presence of Resident A, but his position was that it was a general conversation and not a “request.”

134. The Panel found that the Registrant’s explanations that the money was not accepted and was not a loan were not credible. Furthermore, that evidence was inconsistent with the messages and with what it is recorded he had earlier said at the investigatory interviews with witness VN when he used the word “loan” and explained the repayment arrangements.

135. Whilst the Registrant asserted that he did not “accept” the money, the Panel found that his explanations about not accepting the money made little sense and were not credible. They were in defiance of the bank statements. It rejected the Registrant’s evidence in this regard. The Panel concluded that the money alleged was paid as a loan to the Registrant by Resident A and that money was accepted by the Registrant.

136. Was the loan requested? The Panel used the ordinary and natural meaning of that word, which can include seeking or appealing for something. It considered the evidence as a whole, including the nature and content of the WhatsApp messages and the hearsay evidence of what Resident A is reported to have told witness VF. She is reported to have said that she had been asked by the Registrant for a loan. She also told witness VF that she was worried about the repayment arrangements.

137. Treating that hearsay evidence with some caution, the Panel nonetheless found that it was evidence of what Resident A understood from her conversations with the Registrant – that he had sought a loan from her and had agreed repayment arrangements with him. That hearsay evidence was strongly consistent with, and is reflected in the language she, and the Registrant, use in the messages.

138. The Panel concluded that it was a reasonable inference from the hearsay evidence and from the messages between the parties, that the Registrant had “requested” the loan. In the absence of such a request, the Panel found it was not credible, and it was inherently improbable, that sums of money would have been paid into the Registrant’s bank account by Resident A shortly after these messages took place. The Panel found that it was more likely than not that Resident A’s response was a result of the Registrant seeking or requesting the loan from her, and that was her clear understanding.

139. The Panel concluded that that the Registrant requested and accepted the loan of £2,500 as alleged and found this particular proved.

140. The Panel found that the acceptance of a loan is a breach of professional boundaries. There was a power imbalance between the parties. It was a breach of the Home’s policy. The Panel found that borrowing money from a service user is a clear and serious breach of professional boundaries. The Panel was mindful of the HCPC Practice Note ‘Professional Boundaries’ and found that the following paragraphs as to types of breach were engaged:-

“4 b. Professionals entering or attempting to enter into inappropriate personal relationships with service users and/or their carers (including sexual and/or financial relationships, and relationships over social media)

4 g. Sharing personal information with service users or their carers (particularly where this puts the needs of the registrant ahead of those of the service user or their carer)

4 h. Improperly using or taking advantage of the power and trust that health and care professionals hold when in social or personal settings.”

Particular 1 c. You made the following comments in WhatsApp messages to Resident A:

1. "You're more a friend than a patient",

2. "You are a great sister from another mother",

3. "Just know I'm not a stranger. I'm family in a way".

141. The Registrant admitted that he had sent these messages which he described as compassionate. The Panel also had sight of the messages. The Panel found this proved.

142. As regards professional boundaries, the Registrant accepted that the messages may have been over familiar. He accepted the relationship was personal and emotional and that he had “blanked” the work ethos with Resident A. The Panel found that the messages were personal and overly familiar. The Panel noted that message 2 above, was sent by the Registrant immediately after the receipt of money from Resident A.

143. The Panel was satisfied that paragraph 4 b. of the Professional Boundaries Practice Note (as quoted above) was engaged and that the messages sent were a breach of appropriate professional boundaries.

Interim Order (5.45pm Friday 25 October 2024)

144. The Presenting Officer applied for an Interim Order given the factual findings of the Panel. She applied on public protection grounds and in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. She sought an 18 month Interim Suspension Order. She said the Registrant had received notice of the possibility of an interim order in the initial hearing notice earlier this year.

145. The Registrant said he had not had an opportunity to read the decision as he had not yet received the Panel’s written decision. He said he needed to consult with his lawyers. He said he had worked for two years since these matters without further incident and was not a danger to the public. He added that he had ceased working as a Physiotherapist in July 2024.

146. The Legal Assessor provided the Panel with legal advice as to the ability of the Registrant, as an unrepresented registrant, to effectively participate in this application. He also referred to the HCPC Practice Note on Interim Orders and the requirement to act fairly and proportionately should it proceed to consider an Interim Order.

147. The Panel was of the view that to proceed would be inherently unfair to the Registrant. He has received the decision, which is 30 pages long, but he has not yet had an opportunity to read it, understand the decision and consequently he cannot effectively participate in this application at this point.

Resumed hearing on 4 December 2024

148. The hearing reconvened to consider the issue of statutory grounds. In the intervening period, a freshly constituted panel determined that an interim order should be imposed upon the Registrant, who attended the initial part of the hearing only. The Registrant told that panel that he was unable to sustain attendance at the hearing due to a problem [REDACTED] which meant that he could not concentrate or remain static. Despite being offered reasonable adjustments by the panel, the Registrant withdrew from the interim order hearing, which then proceeded in his absence.

149. In advance of the resumption of this hearing, the Registrant informed the Panel that he would not be attending [REDACTED]. The Panel therefore was required to consider whether it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

Service

150. The Hearings Officer presented the 5 page Service Bundle to the Panel, confirming that notice of the resumption of the hearing was sent to the Registrant via email on 31 October 2024 to the address listed on the Registrant’s Certificate of registration on the HCPC Register.

151. The Panel received, accepted and applied the advice provided y the Legal Assessor, and had regard to the practice note on ‘Service of Documents’ issued by the HCPTS. It noted that the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’) provide at paragraph 3(1)(b) that notice of a hearing may be served on a registrant by posting it to their address as it appears in the Register or sending it to an electronic mail address provided by the registrant for communications. Paragraph 6(2) of the Rules confirms that at least 28 days notice of a hearing must be provided to a registrant.

152. The Panel was provided with a copy of the notice of hearing sent via email on 31 October 2024 at 3.07 pm to the Registrant, together with the delivery receipt. It was also provided with an email from the Registrant sent on 2 December 2024 at 22.55, in which the Registrant stated “I would like to pass my sincere apologies as I am unable to attend my hearing”.

153. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been duly served upon the Registrant via his email address more than 28 days before the hearing. It was content that the HCPC had discharged its duty to give notice of the hearing as set out at Article 31(15) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (‘the Order’) and the hearing could therefore proceed.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

154. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. She reminded the Panel that the Registrant had indicated via email that he did not intend to attend the hearing. He had not requested an adjournment or to have representation at the hearing. He also had not provided any medical evidence to support his assertion that the reason for his non-attendance was due to a medical condition. The Registrant sent a submission to the Panel for consideration at the hearing. She submitted that there was an expectation that regulatory proceedings progressed expeditiously when it was fair to do so. She invited the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

155. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied, and had regard to the relevant practice notes provided by the HCPTS – ‘Unrepresented registrants’ and ‘Proceeding in the absence of the registrant’. It noted that the Registrant confirmed via email on 2 December 2024 that he would not be attending the hearing.

156. Having determined that good service of notice of the hearing had been effected by the HCPTS, the Panel carefully considered all of the circumstances of the case to inform its assessment of the fairness to the HCPC, the public and the Registrant in respect of whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. It noted that the notice of hearing specifically informed the Registrant that the hearing could proceed in his absence if proper notice was given of the hearing. It was also mindful that this hearing was the continuation of a substantive hearing which commenced in August 2024 and continued in October 2024.

157. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting as required by the Rules as a consequence of the good service of the notice of hearing. It was also satisfied that the HCPC had taken reasonable steps to engage the Registrant in the proceedings – the Registrant attended the hearing in August and October and supplied a medical reason (though no proof) as to his inability to continue to engage. There had been no request for an adjournment by the Registrant, nor had he expressed an interest in being represented at the hearing. There was no information before the Panel as to when the Registrant may be fit to resume attendance at the hearing if the hearing was adjourned to a future date.

158. In considering fairness to the HCPC and the public when making its decision whether to proceed with the hearing or not, the Panel noted that the HCPC attended the hearing and was in a position to proceed. Although the Panel had already secured witness evidence in this matter, the case involved a vulnerable service user and it was therefore desirable to prevent further delay in the disposal of this case. The Panel considered the factors in favour of proceeding with the hearing against the prejudice that may be caused to the Registrant by the matter proceeding in his absence, noting that the stage of the hearing reached was in any event for the judgement of the Panel, rather than consideration of matters which needed to be proved by the HCPC. It was mindful that registrants should not be able to frustrate the efficient administration of regulatory matters by simply not engaging in, or disengaging from, the proceedings. Given that the Registrant proactively contacted the HCPC to confirm he would be absent from the hearing, and provided a written submission for the Panel to consider, the Panel was content that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the rest of the hearing. The Panel considered that it could provide the Registrant with copies of its determination at each stage of the proceedings to mitigate the extent of any disadvantage to him.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Nathan Tapambwa from the Register on the date this order comes into effect

Interim Order

Application

210. Upon the Panel determining the appropriate sanction to be a Striking Off Order, the Presenting Officer applied for an Interim Order. In advance of making that application, she applied for the Panel to proceed to hear her application in the absence of the Registrant. She confirmed that this application was made on the same basis as the application agreed by the Panel at the start of the reconvened hearing on 4 December 2024.

211. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied. It noted that the possibility of an interim order being applied for during the hearing was clearly set out in the notice of hearing sent to the Registrant. The Panel remained of the view that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, and that it was appropriate for the hearing to proceed in his absence.

212. The Presenting Officer sought an Interim Order of Suspension for the time allowed for appealing against the final disposal order or, if such an appeal is made, whilst that appeal is in progress. An Interim Suspension Order was applied for on the grounds of public protection and in the public interest based on the risk of repetition of misconduct as identified by the Panel in its decision. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the substantive Striking Off Order it had imposed would not take effect until the time for lodging an appeal had elapsed, or when any such appeal is determined, whichever is the later. Given that the Panel had specifically found that the Registrant poses a risk to the public and imposed the Striking Off Order in the public interest, it would be entirely appropriate for an Interim Suspension Order to also be imposed.

213. The Registrant was not in attendance and therefore made no representations in relation to the application for an Interim Order.

Decision

214. The Panel carefully considered the submission on behalf of the HCPC and the advice provided by the Legal Assessor, which it accepted. They also noted the provisions of the guidance note issued by the HCPTS in respect of Interim Orders and the provisions about the same in the Sanctions Policy. It reminded itself that it had a discretion to impose an Interim Order where:

a. there is a serious and ongoing risk to service users or the public from the Registrant’s conduct; or

b. the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to remain in practice on an unrestricted basis.

215. The Panel was mindful that, in imposing a Striking Off Order, it had found that there was an ongoing risk to service users from the actions of the Registrant. The factors which led the Panel to impose the Striking Off Order were still pertinent.

216. Given that the Panel earlier today considered the Registrant’s misconduct to be such that striking off was warranted for the protection of public, it believed that public confidence in the regulatory process would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to remain in practice on an unrestricted basis pending the substantive Striking Off Order coming into effect. Without an Interim Suspension Order, there would be no bar to the Registrant practising. Therefore, the Panel determined that it was appropriate and proportionate for it to exercise its discretion and impose an Interim Order of Suspension pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Profession Order 2001 to protect public and otherwise promote the public interest.

217. Given the time that appeals can take, the Panel considered it appropriate for the order to be imposed for a period of 18 months

The Panel makes 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.
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 Nathan Tapambwa