Emma-Jo Montgomery

Preliminary Matters

Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private.

1. Mr Corrie made an application for part of the hearing to be heard in private when matters related to the Registrant’s health.

2. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel decided that it was appropriate to hold those parts of the hearing in private which related to the health of the Registrant in order to protect the private life of the Registrant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10(1)a of the Rules.

Background

3. The Registrant is a registered Podiatrist with registration number CH34590.

4. Under Part 11A of the Health Professions Order 2001, and the Health Care and Associated Professions (Indemnity Arrangements) Order 2014, Schedule 1, Part 1, a Registrant who is practising must have Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”) in force.

5. It was alleged that the Registrant did not have an indemnity arrangement in place while working at Foot Medic from July 2021 until April 2022.

6. The Registrant was employed to work at Foot Medic in Glasgow as a Podiatrist from July 2021 until her resignation in July 2022. Due to a potential patient complaint in May 2022, the Registrant’s employer requested various pieces of information from her, including confirmation of her registration with the Royal College of Podiatrists (“RCOP”) and details of her PII cover. Following a meeting with the Registrant on 12 May 2022, her employer checked the RCOP website and the Registrant’s details did not appear. He telephoned RCOP who confirmed the Registrant had just submitted an application for membership on 9 May 2022 and this could be why her details were not on the website.

7. On 18 May 2022, in a meeting with her employer, the Registrant is alleged to have informed her employer that she was insured by the RCOP, that she had always been a member, and that she would provide documentation to support this. Following this meeting, the Registrant’s employer asked her to provide evidence of her insurance status on a number of occasions over the following months. The Registrant did provide an RCOP certificate which stated that she was a member but did not provide dates of membership.

8. The Registrant resigned from Foot Medic with immediate effect on 11 July 2022. In response to emails from the HCPC in November 2022, RCOP emailed to confirm the Registrant was a member from 1 January to 20 March 2020 and was not a member again following this until 9 May 2022. She was not a member in 2021.

9. The Registrant acknowledged in the substantive hearing that during the period of January 2022 to March 2022 she did not possess the required professional indemnity insurance and set out that at the time of the concerns, she had recently returned to work. The Registrant advised that the failure to obtain insurance was an oversight and was due to an administrative error. The remaining allegations were denied.

10. The hearing panel determined as a fact that the Registrant had led her employer to believe that she had professional indemnity insurance when she did not. Further, the hearing panel determined that the Registrant had not provided a copy of the insurance certificate as none existed. The panel considered that this conduct was dishonest and was undertaken with the intention of concealing the position.

11. The hearing panel considered that this amounted to misconduct and found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public component. The hearing panel considered that the Registrant lacked insight and stated,
“The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had taken personal responsibility for her dishonest conduct, nor had she meaningfully reflected and demonstrated insight into the impact of dishonesty on the reputation of the profession generally. The Panel concluded that her lack of candour on discovery of the lack of insurance cover, and which continued throughout this hearing, was indicative of a lack of insight on her part.”

The hearing panel considered that there was an ongoing risk of repetition of dishonest conduct given this lack of insight and it stated,

“As such it concluded that there remained an ongoing risk of her dishonest conduct being repeated should a similar situation arise in the future where she was challenged in relation to some aspect of her practice, albeit that it may not be in relation to the exact same circumstances as arose in this case.”

12. The hearing panel also considered that the serious nature of the repeated dishonesty warranted a finding of impairment on public interest grounds.

13. The hearing panel considered that the dishonesty was capable of remediation with the development of insight and that the conduct was not so serious as to require an immediate striking off order. The hearing panel imposed a suspension order for a period of 6 months.

14. During the period of suspension, the HCPC received six separate complaints about the Registrant allegedly practising or holding herself out as a podiatrist in breach of the suspension order.

15. The Panel was provided with the details of those complaints and the supporting evidence that had been collected by the HCPC to date.

Submissions

16. Mr Corrie on behalf of the HCPC provided the Panel with detailed submissions relating to the background of the proceedings and referred the Panel to the relevant caselaw and guidance applicable for this review. In summary, Mr Corrie submitted that it was a matter for this Panel to determine the question of current impairment taking into account all of the information before it.

17. He submitted that the HCPC’s position was that in relation to insight, the Registrant had not demonstrated that she had remedied her misconduct, as she had continued to mislead individuals about her registration status during the period of her suspension.

18. Mr Corrie submitted that the Registrant, in her own evidence, had been less than straightforward with the Panel. He submitted that there was evidence that the Registrant had continued to use references to podiatry on her social media and website accounts, and this suggested that the Registrant continued to convey a misleading impression of her status whilst suspended.

19. Mr Corrie submitted that the chain of messages between the Registrant and Complainant 6, which related to nail surgery, was evidence that the Registrant continued to mislead a potential patient and then subsequently the HCPC. Mr Corrie drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that the Registrant did not tell Complainant 6 that she was suspended and unable to carry out nail surgery and, in the messages, relating to carrying out the surgery stated. “…this is something I would do myself.”

20. Mr Corrie drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s response to the HCPC in relation to this matter where she stated, “I advised him clearly that I was not performing any nail-surgery procedures on my own, and that any patient requiring such treatment should be referred to Nicola Murray, Podiatrist at L&N Podiatry, Holytown.
I also provided my HCPC registration number transparently, acknowledging that a suspension order was in place at that time. No appointment was offered or accepted, and no clinical procedure took place.”

21. Mr Corrie submitted that this was not the position as reflected in the messages which did not contain any of the detail mentioned in paragraph 20. Further, the Registrant had also omitted to include a message she sent to the complainant in which she stated she would be carrying out the surgery herself in her response to the HCPC. Mr Corrie submitted that the Registrant acknowledged in her evidence to the Panel that she had omitted to include the message as it reflected badly upon her.

22. Mr Corrie submitted that the transcript of the podcast was a further example of the Registrant being less than straightforward as she had claimed that the podcast was recorded at various dates in order to convey the impression that it was recorded before the suspension order. He submitted that within her answers to questions during cross examination about the podcast the Registrant admitted that she did not have a master’s degree or PHD despite what was stated in the podcast that she had “done like a masters and PHD stuff.”

23. Mr Corrie submitted that in the Registrant’s legal letter to one of the complainants to the HCPC, Mr Williamson, was evidence that the Registrant had sought to minimise the reasons for her initial suspension and had suggested it was due to an “administrative oversight” and was not due to dishonesty. He submitted that the Registrant throughout the letter appeared to minimise her misconduct and the associated finding of dishonesty which was further misleading.

24. In these circumstances Mr Corrie submitted that as the Registrant’s insight was not complete the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. He submitted that the Registrant’s conduct during the period of suspension has suggested that she is liable to repeat matters of the kind found proved. He submitted that a striking off order was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.

25. The Registrant in her evidence and submissions she stated that she had fully engaged and complied with the suspension order and the complaints that had been raised against her were an attempt to harass her.

26. The Registrant stated that there was no intention to mislead anyone with her use of social media and as soon as the matters were brought to her attention, she removed posts or hashtags. She submitted that the use of podiatry as a hashtag would be acceptable in an educational context and these were the nature of her posts.

27. In relation to the exchange of messages with Complainant 6 she explained that she had poorly worded one of her text messages and there was no attempt to mislead. She submitted that she had provided her HCPC registration number and was transparent with Complainant 6 that he would need an assessment before any surgery took place. The Registrant stated that she had removed nail surgery from her website to make it clear that an assessment was required. The Registrant stated that as no further consultation took place there was no further exchange of messages relating to the surgery but that she would have made the position clear at any assessment.

28. The Registrant pointed out to the Panel that Complainant 6 had also removed messages from the thread and that he was a false patient who was attempting to entrap her.

29. The Registrant submitted that the podcast was broadcast without her consent and without her having been given an opportunity to edit. She stated that she would have asked for certain things to have been removed in relation to her qualification status. The Registrant acknowledged that she had not been consistent with her accounts as to when the podcast was recorded as she was attempting to paint herself in a better light.

30. In relation to the legal letter sent to Mr Williamson the Registrant stated that he was not misled about the reasons for her suspension as he was aware of her registration number and could access the decision. The Registrant stated that the letter was sent in an attempt to prevent further harassment which had escalated to vandalism of her car and was not intended to mislead anyone about her status.

31. The Registrant submitted that there was a procedural unfairness at the outset of the investigation into her conduct which affected her ability to participate fully. The Registrant submitted that this was relevant to the proportionality of any sanction at this stage.

32. The Registrant drew the Panel’s attention to the Ethics course she had attended and her reflective works and audits she had submitted. The Registrant stated that this material was evidence that she had demonstrated thorough and sustained reflection since the matters were first raised four years ago. The Registrant submitted that this evidence and her unblemished record before and since the incidents was evidence that she had addressed her past misconduct and would not repeat matters.

33. [Redacted]. She submitted that the initial 6 months suspension had now been ongoing for almost 9 months and any further suspension would be disproportionate and amount to a punishment. The Registrant invited the Panel to revoke the current suspension order, or in the alternative impose a Conditions of Practice Order to allow her to resume her practice with some regulatory oversight.

Panel’s Approach

34. In undertaking this review, the Panel took into account all the evidence both documentary and oral and the submissions made on behalf of the HCPC and those made by the Registrant.

35. The Panel accepted and applied the advice it received from the Legal Assessor as to the proper approach it should adopt. In particular that:

• The purpose of the review is to consider the issue of impairment based on the previous panel’s findings of fact, the extent to which the Registrant has engaged with the regulatory process, the scope and level of her insight and the risk of repetition.

• In terms of whether her misconduct has been sufficiently, and appropriately remedied relevant factors include whether the Registrant:

(i) fully appreciates the gravity of the previous panel’s finding of impairment;
(ii) has maintained or updated her skills and knowledge;

• The Panel should have regard to the HCPTS Practice Note: ‘Finding that Fitness to Practise is impaired’ and must take account of a range of issues which, in essence, comprise two components:

(i) the ‘personal’ component: the current competence, behaviour etc. of the individual registrant; and
(ii) the ‘public’ component: the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

• It is only if the Panel determine that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, that the Panel should go on to consider sanction by applying the guidance as set out in the HCPC Sanctions Policy (SP), and the principles of proportionality which require the Registrant’s interests to be balanced against the interests of the public.

Decision

Impairment

36. The Panel considered very carefully all of the information before it and in particular the information provided by the Registrant which she submitted demonstrated that she had fully addressed the issues which led to her previous misconduct.

37. The Panel agreed with the substantive Panel that dishonesty is an attitudinal issue and is difficult to remediate. The Panel took account of the conclusions of the previous panel at paragraphs 94-96 which stated,
94. In relation to dishonesty, the Panel recognised that dishonesty is difficult to remediate. The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had taken personal responsibility for her dishonest conduct, nor had she meaningfully reflected and demonstrated insight into the impact of dishonesty on the reputation of the profession generally. The Panel concluded that her lack of candour on discovery of the lack of insurance cover, and which continued throughout this hearing, was indicative of a lack of insight on her part.

95. The Panel concluded that the Registrant continued to steadfastly maintain that she had not acted dishonestly. Furthermore, it concluded that she continued to deflect personal responsibility for her dishonest behaviour by asserting bullying and harassing by Mr Canney, and maintaining that he had fabricated evidence against her, for example in relation to his notes of his meeting with her on 18 May 2022. Recognising that the Registrant was entitled to defend herself in relation to allegations she denied, these factors, the Panel concluded, could quite properly be taken into account when considering insight and impairment in line with the principle in Sawati.

96. The Panel was concerned that despite the Registrant’s submissions, the Registrant had failed to meaningfully develop insight into her dishonest behaviour and therefore it was not satisfied that the Registrant had, in practice, remediated her failings in this regard. As such it concluded that there remained an ongoing risk of her dishonest conduct being repeated should a similar situation arise in the future where she was challenged in relation to some aspect of her practice, albeit that it may not be in relation to the exact same circumstances as arose in this case.

38. The Panel considered that there was evidence that the Registrant had not developed meaningful insight into her dishonesty and her conduct had continued to suggest that there was a lack of acceptance of her dishonest conduct.

39. The Panel considered that her legal letter to Mr Williamson dated 6 October 2025 which described her suspension as arising from “an administrative matter” and suggesting that Mr Williamson was misleading in creating an impression of dishonesty. The Panel considered that the Registrant, in this letter, had attempted to minimise the seriousness of the matters which led to her suspension and continued to demonstrate a lack of insight into the dishonesty aspect of her misconduct.

40. The Panel was also concerned that the Registrant had suggested in her responses to the HCPC that she had been open and transparent with Complainant 6 about her suspension and had “advised him clearly that I was not performing any nail surgery on my own.” The Panel considered that this was not reflected within the text message exchange and it was not made clear to Complainant 6 that she would not be performing the surgery because she was suspended. In fact, the Registrant went on to tell Complainant 6 in a text message that this was something that she would do herself.

41. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant alleged Complainant 6 was not a real patient and was attempting to entrap her as part of an ongoing harassment campaign. Nevertheless, the Panel noted that the text exchange was not open or straightforward about the Registrant’s suspended status and did not clearly explain to Complainant 6 that the Registrant was not able to undertake nail surgery. The Panel did not consider the Registrant’s explanation that this would have been made clear at a face-to-face appointment to be relevant and it did not detract from the evidence that she had not been fully open and transparent about her status from the outset.

42. The Panel further considered that the Registrant’s omission of the message, which stated she would undertake the surgery, in her written response to her Regulator was a further example of her inability to be fully open and transparent about her conduct when challenged by the Regulator. The Panel considered that in her oral evidence under cross-examination the Registrant admitted that she had omitted to include the message because it made her look bad whereas she had originally stated it was because it may have been a technical error. The Panel considered that this was an example of the Registrant’s inability to demonstrate openness and accountability even in the face of evidence to the contrary. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s evidence continued to suggest blame on the part of others and was a deflection and obfuscation of her own accountability.

43. The Panel was also concerned that the Registrant had made claims about her studies and qualifications in a podcast which she subsequently accepted during the hearing were not correct. The Panel noted the Registrant’s explanation that the podcast was aired without her consent and she would have asked for those matters to be removed. However, the Panel did not consider that this detracted from the fact that the claims were made in the first place. The Panel considered that this was a further example of a situation in which the Registrant was less than straightforward and had made misleading statements.

44. The Panel considered the Registrant’s reflective statements which suggested she had taken accountability and had demonstrated remediation. However, when placed next to her oral evidence and her conduct when challenged about her continued use of the podiatry title during the suspension the Panel considered that it could attach little weight to these statements which were not reflected in her conduct.

45. The Panel noted that the Registrant had amended her social media pages when requested but it considered that she had not taken a proactive approach to ensure that she did not mislead.

46. The Panel noted that the Registrant had taken
an ethics course but there was very little evidence of reflection on this learning and no evidence that it had been embedded into her conduct. The Panel noted that the Registrant continued to assert that there had been no patient complaints and that she was a safe practitioner but had failed to address the impact of her dishonesty and the lack of insurance on patients and the reputation of the profession.

47. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s insight into her dishonest conduct remained limited and there had been no progression since the initial hearing. In the view of the Panel the Registrant did not show any meaningful insight into her conduct and has provided no evidence, beyond words, that the Registrant fully appreciates the gravity of her dishonesty or the impact on patients.

48. The Panel considered that this lack of insight has resulted in her failure to be open and honest with the Regulator and Patients during the period of her suspension and in these circumstances in the absence of any insight and remediation, the Panel concluded that there has been no material change in circumstances, since the finding of impairment in April 2025. The Panel concluded that the subsequent failure to take accountability and to be open and transparent suggests that the dishonesty found proved may be an embedded attitudinal issue.

49. The Panel noted that a significant aspect of the public component is upholding proper standards of behaviour. Members of the public would be extremely concerned to learn that a Podiatrist that had failed to meet the standards expected of them and had not taken any meaningful steps to address these deficiencies were permitted to resume unrestricted practice. The Panel concluded that, in these circumstances, a finding of no impairment would fail to declare and uphold proper standards, would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as a regulator given the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct.

50. Therefore, the Panel was led to the inevitable conclusion, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on the basis of the personal and public component.

51. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired the Panel went on to consider what sanction, if any, to impose.

Sanction

52. The Panel first considered taking no action. The Panel concluded that, in view of the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s lack of misconduct which has not been remediated to take no action on her registration would be inappropriate. Furthermore, it would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence and uphold the reputation of the profession.

53. The Panel considered a Caution Order. As the Registrant has demonstrated only very limited insight into her misconduct competence and has not remediated her dishonesty, the Panel concluded that a Caution Order would be inappropriate and insufficient to protect the public and meet the wider public interest.

54. The Panel went on to consider a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel took the view that the nature of the Registrant’s misconduct could not be appropriately managed by a Conditions of Practice Order. In addition, given the Registrant’s lack of openness and accountability, the panel was not confident that the Registrant could be relied upon to comply with Conditions, even if suitable conditions could be formulated.

55. The Panel next considered extending the current Suspension Order for a further period of time. A Suspension Order would re-affirm to the Registrant, the profession and the wider public standards expected of a registered Podiatrist. The Panel noted that a Suspension Order would prevent the Registrant from practising during the extended suspension period, which would therefore protect the public and the wider public interest.

56. However, the Panel considered that there was little evidence that the Registrant would be able to develop the required insight and remediation to enable her to return to practice.

57. The Panel considered the HCPC Sanctions Policy and in particular had regard to paragraphs 130 – 132. The Panel considered that the Registrant lacked insight and her subsequent failure to be open and transparent with the HCPC and patients suggested she was unable to appreciate the gravity of her misconduct and was at a high risk of repeating such conduct which was incompatible with continued registration.

58. The Panel therefore determined that the only appropriate and proportionate order was a Striking Off Order. In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the significant impact a Striking Off Order decision will have on the Registrant’s right to practise as well as the potential financial and reputational impact but decided that the need to uphold the public interest outweighed her interests in this respect. The Panel considered that protection of the public and public confidence in the regulatory profession would not be served by any lesser sanction.

59. The Panel therefore decided to impose a Striking Off Order which will take effect today, pursuant to Article 30(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Emma-Jo Montgomery from the Register.

This Order comes into place with immediate effect.

History of Hearings for Emma-Jo Montgomery