Mr Philip J Stringer

Profession: Radiographer

Registration Number: RA26242

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 05/08/2016 End: 12:00 05/08/2016

Location: Health and Care Professions Council, 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

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 tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation

During the course of your employment as a Radiographer at University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust, you:

1. On or around 5 March 2014, attended work whilst under the influence of alcohol.

2. The matters described in paragraph 1 constitute misconduct.

3. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary Matters
Service

1. The documents before the Panel indicate, and the Panel has found, that the Registrant was served with the Notice of Hearing in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in absence

2. The Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC at any stage. There has been no application for an adjournment nor any indication that if this hearing were to be adjourned the Registrant would attend on any subsequent occasion. The Panel has found that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself. This is a mandatory review and the Panel has concluded that it is in the public interest that this matter should be heard without delay; it is satisfied that no injustice would arise to the Registrant if the matter were now to proceed.

Proceeding in private

3. The Panel has determined that as these matters relating to the Registrant’s health condition the hearing should be held in private.

Background

4. From about August 2012 the Registrant was frequently absent from work by reason of health problems. In about May 2013 his line manager sister JS became concerned. However she had no concerns about his ability to work or indeed did she ever have any such concerns.

5. The Registrant was suspended from work and subsequently at a disciplinary hearing he was dismissed. The Registrant later self-referred to the HCPC.

6. The original Panel determined that the factual matters found proved amounted to misconduct. It further found that in the light of its findings the Registrant’s fitness to practices was impaired.

7. In regard to sanction the Panel found it significant that it had no information about the Registrant’s current employment nor whether he had taken any effective steps in regard to his problem.

8. That Panel in directing a suspension order indicated that such an order would not only protect the public but would afford the Registrant the opportunity to demonstrate that he could address his problem and return to safe practise.

Decision on impairment

9. The Panel has determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

10. In reaching its decision the Panel considered the evidence, documentation and information contained in the bundle that was before the original Panel together with the submissions of Mr Newman. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

11. In the absence of any engagement by the Registrant since the date of the original order the Panel has no further information.

12. The Registrant has been afforded considerable help and support. However, the support he has been offered has apparently been to no avail.

13. Although the original Panel in its determination said that the sanction imposed would give the Registrant the opportunity to demonstrate that he could address his problem there is nothing to indicate that he has done so.

Decision on sanction

14. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered all the information before it together with the submissions of Mr Newman. It has had regard to the Council’s Indicative Sanctions Policy. It has approached the question of sanction from the bottom of the scale upwards. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It has exercised the principle of proportionality at all times.

15. The Panel first considered whether to revoke the existing suspension order or to allow it to lapse. In the absence of any further information from the Registrant it has concluded that this would be wholly inappropriate and insufficient to protect the public. Furthermore a caution order would also be insufficient as a sanction.

16.  The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice order. However there is nothing to indicate that the Registrant would comply with such an order. Moreover, in the absence of any information about whether any effective steps have been taken to address his problem, no conditions sufficient to protect the public could be formulated.

17.  The Panel then considered whether a further period of suspension would be a sufficient sanction. However, the Registrant has not given any indication that he has taken steps to address his problem nor indeed has he engaged in any way with the HCPC. In these circumstances the Panel has therefore concluded that it is now unlikely that he will take any further opportunity to engage with the proceedings and provide evidence of appropriate steps taken to address his problem.

18. The Panel has therefore concluded that the only appropriate, sufficient and proportionate sanction is a Striking Off order.

Order

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

Notes

The order imposed today will apply from 2 September 2016 date.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Philip J Stringer

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
05/08/2016 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Struck off