Johnny John-Kamen

Profession: Practitioner psychologist

Registration Number: PYL17261

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 22/11/2016 End: 17:00 22/11/2016

Location: Hilton Leeds City Hotel, Neville Street. Leeds. LS1 4BX

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Conditions of Practice

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

Whilst registered as a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, you were commissioned on 3 December 2011 by the Diocese of Middlesbrough to carry out a risk assessment, and you:

 

1. Did not submit a risk assessment to the Diocese of Middlesbrough regarding a Head Teacher, GF.

 

2. Did not respond to letters from the Diocese of Middlesbrough dated:

a) 29 September 2012;

b) 6 December 2012; and

c) 31 January 2013.

 

3. The matters described in paragraphs 1 - 2 constitute misconduct.

 

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

Finding

Background:

 

1.     In   December   2011   the   Registrant   was   instructed   by   the   Diocese   of Middlesborough (“the Diocese”) to undertake a risk assessment of a head teacher within the Diocese, Mr A. An initial meeting with representatives from the Diocese took place in February 2012 at which timescales were discussed. The minutes of the meeting suggest that the Registrant indicated that he could conduct his assessment and produce his report within four weeks.

 

2.     The Registrant attended appointments with Mr A between April and November 2012, however he failed to produce a report for the Diocese.

 

3.     The Final Hearing took place on 2-3 September 2014. The original panel, having found the facts proved stated in its decision on impairment that:

 

“Members of the public would be very concerned by a psychologist who had failed to acknowledge difficulties in completing an assessment in a case of this nature as a result of personal difficulties and failed to communicate with those who had instructed the report, ignoring their correspondence. In addition, service users need to be able to trust psychologists to communicate with those instructing them if they are unable to complete a report. In these circumstances, the Panel is of the view that public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made. The Panel therefore finds that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired by his misconduct and the

allegation is well founded.”

   

4.     At the sanctions stage the original panel in determining that a Conditions of Practice Order should be imposed stated:

 

“The Panel is of the view that the Registrant’s failings are capable of remediation and has concluded that in these circumstances a conditions of practice order would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Panel considered that, taking account of the Registrant’s personal circumstances at the time of the allegation and his long and otherwise unblemished career, a suspension order would be punitive and unnecessary”

 

5.     The previous Panel concluded that a two year order would provide the Registrant with sufficient time to remediate the failings identified.

 

6.     A mandatory review hearing took place in London on 31 August 2016. The Registrant was unable to attend due to his personal circumstances, but was represented. The August review panel acceded to the application, made on behalf of the Registrant, to adjourn the review hearing to enable it to be re-scheduled in Leeds, so that the Registrant would be able to attend.  The Conditions of Practice Order was extended by 6 months to 1 April 2017.

 

Submissions

7.     Mr Newman, on behalf of the HCPC, outlined the background history of this case and the powers of the Panel in respect of the Conditions of Practice Order, which is due to expire 1 April 2017. He submitted that there has been no change in the Registrant’s circumstances and as he has not practiced for 4 years his fitness to practise remains impaired on the grounds of public protection only. He invited the Panel to maintain the current Conditions of Practice Order. Mr Newman informed the Panel that in the meantime, the HCPC are in the process of considering the possibility of entering into a Voluntary Removal Agreement.

 

8.     Mr Lazarus, on behalf of the Registrant, invited the Panel to accept the Registrant’s witness statement, dated 16 November, as his evidence. He informed the Panel that the Registrant’s difficult personal circumstances have continued and the situation has deteriorated since the adjourned review hearing in August. Mr Lazarus submitted that the hearing was adjourned not only to permit the hearing to be re-scheduled in Leeds, but also to give both parties the opportunity to reach a Voluntary Removal Agreement. He informed the Panel that the Registrant is still awaiting a substantive response.

 

9.     Mr Lazarus, made no submissions as to the Registrant’s current fitness to practise. He informed the Panel that the Registrant has no intention to return to practice and should he change his mind that would constitute a separate disciplinary matter. He invited the Panel to terminate the current Conditions of Practice Order on the basis that the Registrant would retire from the register tomorrow.

 

Panel’s Approach

 

10.   In undertaking this review, the Panel took into account the documentary evidence, including the witness statement of the Registrant, dated 16 November 2016, and the submissions from Mr Newman, on behalf of the HCPC and Mr Lazarus, on behalf of the Registrant.

 

11.   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 his insight, whether his previous misconduct has been sufficiently and appropriately remedied and the risk of repetition.

 

·          In terms of remediation, relevant factors include whether the Registrant:

 

(i)     fully appreciates the gravity of the previous panel’s finding of impairment;

(ii)     has maintained his skills and knowledge;

(iii)    is likely to place patients at risk if he were to return to unrestricted practise.

·          The Panel should have regard to the HCPC 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 Indicative Sanctions Policy, and the principles of proportionality which require the Registrant’s interests to be balanced against the interests of the public.

Decision

12.   The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired based on his previous misconduct. The Panel noted that the Registrant has effectively retired and currently has no intention to return to practise. As a consequence, the Registrant has not been in a position to address the failings identified by the fact finding panel. In particular, the Panel has not been provided with any evidence upon which it could conclude that the deficiencies in the Registrant’s practice have been remediated. There is also limited evidence of insight, which is essential if the Registrant is to demonstrate that the risk to the public has been sufficiently reduced. In these circumstances the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition remains high. 

 

13.   The Panel took the view that in the absence of any evidence of remediation and fully developed insight there remains an ongoing risk to public safety and therefore the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on the basis of the ‘personal’ component and as a consequence the ‘public’ component with regard to protection of the public is also engaged on grounds of public protection.

 

14.   Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel went on to consider what, if any, sanction it should impose.  The Panel first considered whether to terminate the order and impose no further order, but concluded that this would not be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct and would therefore be wholly inappropriate.  Similarly, the Panel was of the view that a caution would not be appropriate as there was no evidence that the Registrant had developed sufficient insight or remediated his failings.  Accordingly, there remains a significant risk of repetition.

 

15.   The Panel next considered the current Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel concluded that although the Registrant has no intention of returning to practise, should he change his mind the Conditions of Practice Order as currently drafted provides adequate protection for the public. The Panel took into account the potential adverse effects on the Registrant but concluded that these were outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to the protection of the public. 

 

16.   The Panel determined that the current Conditions of Practice Order should continue. Shortly before the order expires on 1 April 2017 a further mandatory review will take place, if a Voluntary Removal Agreement has not been agreed in the meantime.

Order

Order: The Registrar is directed to confirm the Conditions of Practice Order against the registration of Mr Johnny John- Kamen, which is due to expire on 1 April 2017, having been extended on 31 August 2016. The conditions are as follows;

1. You will notify the HCPC within 7 days of accepting any work as a practitioner psychologist.

2. You will not commence any such work until you have engaged the services of a peer supervisor who is registered as a practitioner psychologist by the HCPC. You will provide the HCPC with details of this supervisor within 14 days.

3. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

4. You will discuss and reflect upon the following with your supervisor at every supervision meeting:-

a) The effectiveness of communication between you and any party engaging your services;

b) The effectiveness of your time management of each case.

5. You will maintain a record of matters discussed at each supervision meeting which must be signed by your supervisor and sent to the HCPC within 14 days and will be considered by a future reviewing panel.

6. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:-

a) any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

b) any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application);

c) any prospective employer ( at the time of application).

7. You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Johnny John-Kamen

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
02/03/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Voluntary Removal agreed
22/11/2016 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Conditions of Practice
31/08/2016 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Conditions of Practice