Philip B Gowlding

Profession: Chiropodist / podiatrist

Registration Number: CH10867

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 22/06/2015 End: 16:00 26/06/2015

Location: Health and Care Professions Council, Park House, 184 Kennington Park Road, London, SE11 4BU

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Struck off

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.



During the course of your employment as a Podiatrist at Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, between 10 November 2012 and 16 March 2013:

1. You prescribed medicines outside of your scope of practice and qualificafion in that you:

a) prescribed the following medicines to patients under your care on 37 different occasions:

i. Lorazepam;

ii. Dalteparin;

b) on 25 occasions, you led nurses at the Day Case Surgery Unit to believe that you were an authorised prescriber;

c) completed the prescription charts by placing your signature and bleep number in the Prescribers Signature and Bleep' box, which implied that you were an authorised prescriber.

2. You did not keep accurate patient records, in that you:

a) did not complete patient records detailing the administration of local anaesthetic;

b) did not complete contemporaneous entries, including your name and signature.

3. As a result of matters described in paragraph 1, 55 patient theatre records were reviewed and:

a) in 32 cases, you did not document whether patients had received local anaesthetic;

b) in 30 cases of patients undergoing surgery, you did not document whether they received local anaesthetic prior to surgery;

c) in 3 cases, you partially documented whether the patient received local anaesthetic;

d) in 8 cases where surgery had been cancelled or abandoned, you did not document whether the patient received local anaesthetic prior cancellation/abandonment;

e) in 21 cases, you did not sign, print your name or date the operating notes;

f) in 9 cases, you did not record information regarding patients' cancelled procedures.

4. Your actions described in paragraph 1 were dishonest.

5. The matters described in paragraphs 1 - 4 constitute misconduct.

6. By reason of that misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.


Facts Proved: 1a), 1b), 2a), 2b), 2c), 2d), 2e), 3

Grounds: Misconduct

Fitness to Practise Impaired: Yes

Sanction: Strike Off + Interim Suspension Order


Preliminary Matters


1.     The Panel determined that there had been good service of the Notice of Hearing in a letter and an email dated 31 March 2015 sent to the Registrant’s last known registered addresses, and on 6 May 2015 to another, discovered, email address belonging to his wife.

Proceeding in Absence

2.     In addressing the issue of proceeding in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel took into account the submission of Ms Wilkes for the HCPC and the communications from the HCPC showing its efforts to contact the Registrant. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and has exercised the principle of proportionality. Moreover, it has paid regard to the HCPC’s Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

3.     The Panel noted that the Registrant may have changed his address without informing the HCPC and that he has not renewed his contact with his former solicitors. Moreover, he has not engaged with the HCPC since he was first referred in 2013. It also noted that he has not requested an adjournment of this hearing. The Panel was mindful that there were four HCPC witnesses, who have attended and were ready, willing and able to give evidence today.

4.     Taking into account the case law, the Panel carefully considered the efforts made by the HCPC to contact the Registrant. It noted that the HCPC made efforts through an investigator to obtain any potential new address of the Registrant, having received, in June 2014, a note on the Notice of Allegation letter it had sent that stated “no longer at this address”. A possible new address was discovered by the investigation agent on the HCPC’s behalf. When the HCPC contacted him there by letters dated 27 November 2014 and 07 January 2015, there was no response. By that time, the HCPC considered that there was a risk that the second address might not, actually, have been his new address. Thus, the official letter, dated 31 March 2015, notifying the Registrant of this hearing, was sent to his last known registered address for data security reasons, with an email to his last known email address.

5.     The HCPC also attempted further contact with the Registrant. The HCPC established an email address belonging to the Registrant’s wife, and so the HCPC emailed the Registrant again on 06 May 2015 to this email address, informing him of the date, time and place of today’s hearing, with the hearing bundle attached to it.

6.     Meanwhile, other intermediary matters were taking place in relation to the case, and in response to the HCPC attempting to contact the Registrant at that time, his wife telephoned the HCPC on 10 April 2015. In this call, she repeated twice that the Registrant would be unlikely to reply to any emails sent by the HCPC. He no longer wished to practise as a podiatrist and has not done so for 2 years. She provided the HCPC with her own email address, as an alternative to the ones that the HCPC was using.

7.     The Panel considered that the HCPC has gone to extensive lengths to ensure that the Registrant has been fully informed about this hearing and to encourage him to attend and participate effectively in the proceedings. This was despite the Registrant not having informed the HCPC, his regulatory body, as was his duty, of any new address. Nevertheless, in the Panel’s view, the HCPC went to considerable lengths to establish any potential new address of the Registrant through the use of an investigations agent. This is notwithstanding the Registrant’s wife’s comments, as the Panel preferred to rely on other evidence to establish if it could proceed in the Registrant’s absence. This was because the Panel considered that there is no proof that his wife was who she said she was, or that she had his best interests in her mind at the time, by reason of the risk that the conversation between her and the HCPC may not have taken place in the presence of the Registrant.

8.     For these reasons, the Panel has determined that the efforts of the HCPC to seek the participation of the Registrant in his own hearing were sufficient, and, indeed, in the Panel’s judgement, were in excess of its requirements. Thus, the Panel has determined that the wider public interest in the expeditious disposal of hearings, especially where the HCPC has discharged its duty as described and where witnesses have attended, outweighed any interests of the Registrant in having a fair hearing, which can still be effected in his absence. The Panel and the Legal Assessor will, as always, be vigilant to ensure that there is no unfairness in this hearing.

9.     The Panel has determined to proceed in the Registrant’s absence for those reasons and, in any event, the Panel has decided that the Registrant has voluntarily waived his right to be present at this hearing.

Application to amend the allegation

10.   The Panel noted the amendments sought by Ms Wilkes on behalf of the HCPC and noted that the Notice of Hearing had included the proposed amendments. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and exercised the principle of proportionality at all times. The Panel determined that all the amendments sought clarified the case and were not in any way unfair or prejudicial to the Registrant, who had had notice of them and has made no objection. The Panel allowed the amendments sought.


11.   Between 10 November 2012 and 16 March 2013, the Registrant was the Service Lead (Band 8) for the Podiatric Foot and Ankle Surgery Service at the Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Amongst his responsibilities was the performance of surgery and treating of patients with foot-related conditions. Some of these would be surgical procedures carried out under local anaesthetic.

12.   An issue surrounding the Registrant’s practice came to light when certain nurses in early 2013 started to query the Registrant’s ability to prescribe medications in connection with these procedures. One of the staff nurses approached SN, a Charge Nurse, and one of the HCPC’s witnesses. She told him the Registrant was signing prescription charts for medication. SN was concerned and made some enquiries as to whether he was authorised to do so. Other nurses then spoke to GF, a Trainee Podiatric Surgeon. They were surprised that he said the Registrant was unable to prescribe medication, because they had supplied medicines against prescriptions written by the Registrant.

13.   The Registrant was immediately suspended from duty on 28 March 2013 and an investigation commenced by the Trust. The investigation was initially conducted by JF-S and then an external Anti-Fraud investigation took over. The matter passed back to JF-S for the disciplinary hearing, which was held on 27 September 2013. The Trust panel decided to dismiss the Registrant on the grounds of gross misconduct. The matter was referred to the HCPC whilst it was still under investigation.

 Decision on Facts

14.   The Panel heard from four HCPC witnesses, as follows:

·         JF-S, Head of Specialist Services at the Trust at the time;

·         LW, Practice Pharmacy Team Manager at the Trust;

·         RM, Counter Fraud specialist for Audit North West, at the time;

·         SN, a Band 6 Charge Nurse who, at the time, worked in the Trust’s Day Surgery Unit (DSU).

15.   It also read the witness statement of HR, a Legal Assistant at Kingsley Napley, solicitors, relating to the investigation involving Audit North West. The Panel also took into account what the Registrant said to his former employer when interviewed, as detailed in his statement of case.

16.   In reaching its decision on the facts, the Panel took into account that it is for the HCPC to prove its case on the facts on the balance of probabilities. The Panel also accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice, which included guidance on dishonesty. In reaching its conclusions on the grounds, the Panel exercised its judgement.

17.   The Panel formed the following view of each of the HCPC witnesses it saw and heard:

18.   It considered JF-S to be a credible and honest witness, who gave balanced and neutral oral evidence. His investigation of the matter had been thorough.

19.   The Panel determined that LW clarified the processes, procedures and guidance of the Trust in relation to what was and was not allowed, as well as the authority of the Registrant in relation to the prescription of medications. The Panel considered her to be credible and clear in her evidence about the differences between prescribing, administering and supplying medication in the Trust.

20.   The Panel considered SN’s oral testimony to be entirely consistent with his written statement. It was useful because he had spoken to the Registrant directly.

21.   The Panel determined that RM’s evidence was credible and straightforward and useful in relation to the impact on the nursing staff of the Registrant’s conduct.

22.   The Panel made the following findings in relation to the Particulars of Allegation:

Particular 1a) i) – Proved as to 18 occasions in relation to Lorazepam and the following patients: 1, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 49.

and Particular 1a) ii) – Proved as to 6 occasions in relation to Dalteparin and the following patients: 9, 17, 19, 23, 27, 49.

23.   In relation to Particulars of Allegation 1a) i) and 1a) ii), the Panel accepted the evidence of JF-S and LW that the essential purpose of the prescription chart was to effect a prescription to be administered and, thus, was an instruction to prescribe. This was by reason of the signature and the bleep number on it of the authorised prescriber. In the Registrant’s case, his signature and bleep number (601) were on some patients’ notes in relation to the drugs Lorazepam and Dalteparin on a total of 24 occasions, the Panel having inspected each and every one of the relevant patients’ records.

Particular 1b) – Proved as to 23 occasions

24.   The Panel accepted the oral and written evidence of JF-S, SN and RM. The Panel also took into account that ES, a nurse, stated to the Trust investigation that the Registrant had informed her, when she had queried his prescribing authority on one occasion, that he was an authorised prescriber. The Panel considered that she would have had no reason to doubt his word on that occasion and that, therefore, this nurse had been acting in good faith, believing the Registrant, a senior health professional, to be an authorised prescriber. The Panel accepted the evidence of JF-S and LW that the essential purpose of the prescription chart was to effect a prescription to be administered and, thus, was an instruction to prescribe. This was by reason of the signature and the bleep number on it of the authorised prescriber. In the Registrant’s case, his signature and bleep number (601) were on some patients’ notes in relation to 23 occasions, the Panel having inspected each and every one of the relevant patients’ records.

25.   The Panel concluded that the following patients’ records demonstrated that, on the said 23 occasions, the Registrant’s oral and written assurances to the nurses caused them, in good faith, to administer medicines on the Day Case Surgery Unit to Patients 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 43, 49. This was evidenced by the nurses’ having recorded that the medication had been given by them with the date and time of administration. In relation to Patients 37 and 42, the prescription charts were unclear and it was not obvious to the Panel that the nurse had administered the medication. Therefore, the Panel found these two examples not proved.

Particular 1 (Stem) – Proved.

26.   In his witness statement and oral evidence, JF-S stated that if a member of staff was an authorised non-medical prescriber, he would need to be adequately trained and qualified to do so and this would be apparent from his certification and/or his Human Resources file held by the Trust. It would also be apparent from his HCPC registration entry. JF-S, on searching, found no such evidence. The Panel accepted this evidence. Moreover, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s contract of employment also specified that the Registrant, as with all employees, would have been required to be properly and appropriately trained and qualified for all roles undertaken at the Trust.

27.   Thus, in finding as it has done in relation to Particulars of Allegation 1a) i) and ii) and 1b), the Panel has determined that the facts of Particular of Allegation 1, overall, are proved.

Particular 2 – Proved

28.   In relation to Particular of Allegation 2, the Panel used as a reference the North Lancashire NHS Trust’s Policy and the Trust’s Clinical Record Keeping Guideline to determine how to interpret the term “documentation”. It was clear to the Panel that record keeping for medicines must include the recording of the following:

·         The name of the medication;

·         Its strength;

·         The indication for it;

·         Its route;

·         Its dosage;

·         Its frequency;

·         Its duration;

·         Its batch number;

·         Its expiry date;

·         The site of entry for any injection or patch.

29.   Having established what should have been recorded, the Panel went on to analyse all the relevant records to see if those requirements had been met, by careful examination of all the individual relevant patients’ theatre records. The Panel concluded as follows:

Particular 2a) - Proved as to 30 cases, where the requirements had not been met, relating to Patients 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50.

30.   In one case, a local anaesthetic was noted but other vital details were omitted and were, in the Panel’s opinion, wholly inadequate and in breach of the aforementioned Policy.

31.   In relation to patients 22 and 23, the Panel concluded that there was, in each case, a reference to the local anaesthetic in parenthesis to the fact that it was not applicable to note about the last time that the patient in question had eaten and/or drank because he/she had been given a local anaesthetic, noted as “LA”. Although not a totally full entry as required by the Trust’s policy, nevertheless, the Panel concluded that this was adequate and, hence, these two case are found not proved.

Particular 2b) – Proved as to one case, Patient 12, where the Panel noted only partial documentation relating to this patient receiving the local anaesthetic.

32.   In relation to the two other cases, Patients 44 and 47, the Panel noted that the relevant documentation was blank and, therefore, considered that it was unable to conclude anything from it.

Particular 2c) – Proved as to 7 cases, Patients 9, 10, 33, 48, 50, 52, 53.

33.   The Panel accepted the evidence of JF-S that a record of whether a patient had received a local anaesthetic prior to cancellation of a procedure or discharge must be recorded in the records and not just in the discharge documentation, as the two types of documents have different functions. To that end, the Panel, upon individual analysis of the relevant patients’ records found that the 7 aforesaid patients’ records demonstrated that either it had been recorded only in the discharge documentation or that a nurse had recorded it and not the Registrant, or that no one had recorded it. As the wording of the allegation here referred to the Registrant (“you”), the Panel considered that where a nurse had entered the information, the facts of those 5 cases (10, 33, 48, 50 and 52) are proved, as a nurse was not the Registrant.

34.   However, in Patient 41’s records, the Panel noted that there was nothing to state that the operation had been cancelled or abandoned. Thus, it could not find this one proved.

Particular 2d) – Proved as to 22 cases.

35.   The Panel noted that the Trust’s policy required that all operating notes must be signed by the person performing the operation, with the printed name of the author of the record, a job title of that person and a date on which the operation was performed. Initials would not suffice. After consideration of the relevant individual patients’ records, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had omitted to perform these recordings in the cases of Patients 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 21, 24, 26, 29, 34, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53.

36.   In relation to Patient 22, the Panel found that the Registrant had signed and printed his name on the operating note, but not dated it. However, there was a date at the top of the relevant page and the Panel considered that this would have met the standards required by the Trust’s policy. Thus, the Panel could not find this one proved.

Particular 2e) – Proved as to 5 cases.

37.   The Panel noted the Trust’s policy on this and accepted that it stated that a practitioner in the Registrant’s position should have recorded information regarding patients’ cancelled procedures. The Panel examined all the relevant patients’ records and concluded that he had not done so in the case of Patients 9, 10, 33, 50, 52.

38.   However, in relation to Patient 41, the relevant sheet was blank and thus, the Panel could not conclude anything from that. In relation to Patient 53, there was no clear record to show if the procedure had been cancelled; there was a crossed out mark with a date. The Panel concluded that this did not demonstrate that the procedure had been cancelled. To that end, the Panel found the cases in relation to Patients 41 and 53 not proved.

Particular 3 – Proved.

39.   The Panel considered that the facts behind the dishonesty allegation were sufficiently particularised and proved.

40.   In the Panel’s opinion, a reasonable and honest practitioner would consider the Registrant to have been dishonest. He had breached the trust of fellow professionals whilst in a position of authority and was a senior and experienced practitioner. He should have known the risks and consequences of his actions on himself, colleagues and patients and the Panel found that he did know that, whilst deliberately ignoring those risks. Over a considerable period of time, he held himself out to more junior healthcare colleagues as a person authorised to prescribe medication when he had no such training or qualification. In the Panel’s view, this was obviously deceitful conduct and deliberate on the Registrant’s part at all times.

41.   The Panel considered that the Registrant knew what he was doing and that it was dishonest. This was evident from the reassurance he gave the more junior colleague when she questioned him about his non-medical authorisation status for prescribing (EF above), as well as the evidence of SN, who stated that the Registrant told him that there was a PGD (Practice Group Direction) in place when there was not. In the Panel’s opinion, this was further evidence of the Registrant’s deliberate attempt to cover up his wrongdoings. In addition, in his “Statement of Case” for his interview with the Trust, he stated that he was following instructions of a nurse (F-B), which the Panel considered to be a further attempt by him to dissemble and blame others, when he knew he was at fault. Furthermore, he had also told F-B that he was a non-medical prescriber.

42.   In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s conduct was deliberately misleading and went beyond mere negligence or administrative, or other, innocent error.

Decision on Grounds

43.   The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct did not amount to lack of competence as he had, for example, on many occasions, recorded reasonably well and this was evidence that he was an experienced practitioner, who had sufficient skills that he had exercised without error for some time.

44.   The Panel considered the Registrant’s conduct to be serious. The Registrant had dishonestly and deliberately purported to be able, trained and qualified to prescribe medication, when he was not so trained or qualified to do. By so doing he put himself into a position of considerable responsibility, as well as to put patients’ safety and health at risk. The ramifications of his behaviour in breaching the trust of colleagues and putting the health, safety and welfare of his patients at risk is, in the Panel’s judgement, far reaching and profoundly unprofessional and unacceptable. His behaviour was such to bring risk to patients, to bring risk to the registration to other, more vulnerable, junior colleagues and to bring the reputation of the profession of Podiatry into disrepute.

45.   To that end, the Panel has found that the Registrant’s conduct breached the following Standards of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics:

1 You must act in the best interests of service users.


6 You must act within the limits of your knowledge, skills and experience and, if necessary, refer the matter to another practitioner.


7 You must communicate properly and effectively with service users and other practitioners.


10 You must keep accurate records.


13 You must behave with honesty and integrity and make sure that your behaviour does not damage the public’s confidence in you or your profession.


46.   For these reasons, the Panel determined that the facts found proved amount to misconduct.

 Decision on Impairment

47.   The Panel heard a further submission from Ms Wilkes on impairment and it accepted the Legal Assessor’s further advice on that. In addition, it paid regard to the documentation, including that referring to the Registrant’s comments to the Trust. In reaching its decision, the Panel paid regard to the HCPC’s Practice Note on “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and it exercised the principle of proportionality at all times. The Panel exercised its judgement in reaching its decision.


48.   The Panel’s conclusion on misconduct was that the Registrant’s misconduct was extremely serious, put patients at risk for a considerable period of time and undermined the confidence that the public expected in the profession. In the Panel’s judgement, misconduct relating to dishonesty, although potentially remediable with a Registrant’s engagement and expressions of his aspirations for the future and evidence of insight, is irremediable at this time. In this case, the Registrant has chosen not to engage in this process, has expressed limited regret or remorse for his unacceptable and unprofessional behaviour and, in the Panel’s opinion, has demonstrated no insight into his dishonesty whatsoever. The Panel concluded that this is a serious matter, as he is a practitioner of good character and of many years’ standing in a senior position. The Registrant abused this position by breaching the trust of more junior healthcare colleagues, who were all acting in good faith, and his employer. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute. He has breached several tenets of the profession, as reflected in the Panel’s findings on misconduct, and he has behaved in a such way that his integrity can no longer be relied upon.


49.   Although any impairment finding should not punish the practitioner for past wrong doings and is a forward-looking concept, the Panel concluded that, with no information from the Registrant of any kind about how he now feels about his dishonest misconduct or any comments from him about his plans for remediation relating even to record keeping, which is more easily remediable, or any attempts to commence remediation so as to address the failings identified in this case, the Panel could not conclude anything other than that there is a high risk of repetition and that therefore, the Registrant is currently impaired and not fit to practise. The Panel determined that the public would be put at considerable risk and public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory authority would be severely undermined if the Panel were to find the Registrant unimpaired and fit to practise in the circumstances outlined.


50.   Therefore, for these reasons, the Panel has determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.


Decision on Sanction

51.   The Panel took into account the submission of Ms Wilkes and the documentation, including evidence from the Registrant given to the Trust near the time of the events, although the Registrant did not send in any references or testimonials. The Panel accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor and it also paid regard to the HCPC’s “Indicative Sanctions Policy”. It noted that sanction should not be primarily punitive and it approached each sanction in ascending order. The Panel exercised its judgement in reaching its decision.


52.   The Panel first identified the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.


53.   The aggravating factors of the Registrant’s misconduct:


·         Long period of deceit by the Registrant towards patients and fellow healthcare colleagues;


·         Considerable risk of potential harm to his patients;


·         Breaching the trust of his patients, his colleagues and his employer;


·         Perpetuating the risks and deceit after queries were raised;


·         Denying the failures identified;


·         Attempting to spread the blame to others and/or the Trusts allegedly faulty systems of work;


·         No insight, remorse or regret expressed by the Registrant;


·         These were not isolated events;


·         He was in a senior position with many yearsexperience.


54.   Mitigating factors:


·         The Registrant had a long, blemish-free career until these matters;


·         No patient was actually harmed as a result of his misconduct;


·         Some Trust difficulties with its systems of work at the time;


·         A degree of a pressurised working environment for the Registrant.


55.   In the Panels judgement, the aggravating factors clearly outweigh the mitigating factors in this case. Deliberate dishonesty in a professional where he has induced others to enter into risky practice, putting his patients and the registration of others at risk, is dangerous, unacceptable and profoundly unprofessional behaviour. In the Panels view, this type of misconduct cannot be countenanced and must be marked as such to the Registrant, the profession and the wider public.


56.   With those conclusions expressed, the Panel next approached the sanctions available from the least serious first. It considered taking no action, mediation and a Caution Order, and rejected these. The public would still be at considerable risk if the Registrant were to be permitted to return to unrestricted practice, as would happen with any of these outcomes. Remediation could not be commenced with an absent Registrant and also remediation could not be monitored as to whether it had been completed successfully so as to allow the Registrant to become fit to practise again.


57.   The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order and rejected this, too. It was clear to the Panel that the Registrants lack of engagement, as well as his lack of insight and resistance to change of his deceitful practices made it impossible for the Panel to construct any meaningful, workable and enforceable conditions that would meet the risk to patients as well as upholding the wider public interest. Furthermore, the Panel has no information as to his current circumstances.


58.   The Panel next considered a Suspension Order, and rejected this. A Suspension Order may have been an appropriate sanction to mark the seriousness of this case and, for the period of its operation, to serve to protect the public. However, the Panel was of the view that its options at this level have been curtailed by the Registrants non-engagement and lack of evidence of any remediation. In the Panels opinion, the aggravating factors identified outweigh the mitigating factors by a considerable margin and demonstrate that, because of the dishonesty involved, this case is at the top end of the category of seriousness. To that end, the Panel considered that a Suspension Order, even for the maximum period of 12 months, would not serve to alleviate the Registrants failings, as he has expressly disassociated himself from this process and remains, in the Panels judgement, in denial about his deceptions. It is clear to the Panel (1) that the Registrant presently has demonstrated no insight into the consequences of his deceit on his patients and colleagues, and (2) that he currently has no intention to admit his failings, to express regret and demonstrate insight or to describe any remediation that he might intend, so as to address the issues raised in this case and so as to avoid repetition in the future.


59.   For these reasons, in the Panels judgement, there can be no other sanction than the ultimate one. A Suspension Order, by its temporary nature, in the Panels opinion, would not serve to reduce in any way the risk to patients that would persist in this case from this Registrant, who currently appears to be in denial about his acts of deceit, nor would it mark the seriousness of his failings and the obvious concerns of the public in relation to the deliberate and dishonest behaviour of the Registrant over a relatively long period of time. For these reasons, the Panel has determined that any lesser sanction would be disproportionate to the serious misconduct and the continuing resistant attitude of the Registrant to that misconduct.


60.   Therefore, for these reasons, and having rejected all the alternative sanction options available as outlined, the only sanction that the Panel can make is that of a Striking Off Order.




That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Philip B Gowlding from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.



No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Philip B Gowlding

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
22/06/2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Struck off