Ms Emma Jane Walsham

Profession: Social worker

Registration Number: SW83298

Interim Order: Imposed on 04 Jan 2017

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 23/04/2018 End: 16:00 27/04/2018

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

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

(As amended at the substantive hearing)

While registered as a Social Worker and either during the course of your employment as a Social Worker at the London Borough of Bexley or during the course of your duties as a Social Worker with the London Borough of Newham:


1. On 26 August 2015 at Bexley Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of the following offence:

a) On 6 August 2015 drove a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 99 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


2. On 3 November 2016, you attended School A, intending to visit a Service User,

a) while under the influence of alcohol, and

b) while smelling of alcohol.


3. In relation to Service User A, on unknown dates between approximately May 2016 and November 2016 you attended home visits and smelt of alcohol.


4. By reason of your conviction, as set out at paragraph 1, your fitness to practise as a Social Worker is impaired.


5. The matters set out in paragraphs 2-3 constitute misconduct.


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

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Amendment

1. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Dite applied to amend the particulars of the Allegation in respect of which notice had been sent to the Registrant in the Case Summary dated 17 January 2018.

2. He stated that the reason for the application was to improve the wording of the allegations so that their meaning was clearer and to correct two grammatical errors, there being no significant change to the case as a result of the proposed amendments. He submitted that there was no prejudice to the Registrant by the application as she had been given notice of it some two months earlier.

3. The Registrant indicated that she had no objection to the proposed amendments. The Panel followed the advice of the Legal Assessor and asked itself whether, if the amendments were allowed, they would result in prejudice to the Registrant and whether she had been given a proper opportunity of preparing her defence to the Allegation as amended. The Panel decided to allow these amendments, as it could not see any discernible prejudice to the Registrant given that reasonable notice of the intention to amend had been given; she had made no objections to them; none of the proposed amendments materially affected the nature of the Allegation; and that the proposed amendments were essentially grammatical.

Proceeding in Private

4. The Panel noted that some of the evidence related to the Registrant’s health. The Panel reminded itself that proceedings should normally be held in public and noted Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules), which states:

“At any hearing—
(a) the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests 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;”

5. The Panel was mindful that, under Rule 10(1)(a), it must be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of a Registrant or a witness before a decision can be made to exclude the public from any proceedings. Moreover, its decision must be consistent with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which provides limited exceptions to the need for hearings to be held in public, namely that it is “in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client”.

6. The Panel decided to grant the application so as to protect the private life of the Registrant and directed that the hearing was to be held in private whenever detailed consideration of her health matters was made.


Background

7. In August 2015 the Registrant was employed as a social worker by the London Borough of Bexley. On 7 August 2015, the Metropolitan Police Service sent a “Notification Letter” to Bexley Social Services informing them that on 6 August 2015 the Registrant had been arrested at around 23.59 for providing a positive breath test following a road traffic collision. The Registrant had driven her car into two stationary parked cars.

8. On 24 August 2015, at Bexley Magistrates’ Court, the Registrant pleaded guilty to an offence of driving with excess alcohol contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Tests showed that she had consumed so much alcohol that she had 99 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The prescribed breath alcohol limit is 35 micrograms. On 26 August 2015, the Registrant was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours and was disqualified from holding a driving licence for 24 months (which was reduced to a disqualification of 1 year and 24 weeks upon the Registrant attending a Drink Driving Awareness course). The Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC on 7 September 2015 in relation to this conviction.

9. The Registrant commenced working for the London Borough of Newham as a Social Worker on 18 January 2016, having been recruited through an agency, Sanctuary Personnel.

10. On 3 November 2016, the Registrant was alleged to have attended School A whilst under the influence of alcohol. Sixth form students from School B, whose students have learning difficulties, were based at the School A site. Witnesses, including LW, NW and PS, described the Registrant as unsteady on her feet, slurring and incoherent in speech, and smelling of alcohol.

11. PS contacted Newham Council that same day, 3 November 2016, to discuss what had happened with regards to the Registrant and she sent an email to it outlining the events in question. At the request of PS, the next day LW produced a hand written statement detailing the events she witnessed. On 9 November 2016 NW, along with two other colleagues who had been in his office at the time in question, signed a joint letter outlining the incident. These matters relate to Particular 2.

12. Earlier in the day on 3 November 2016 the Registrant’s line manager, JM, had spoken with the Registrant by telephone. The Registrant informed JM that she had spoken with Person A (the father of Service User A) to tell him that she would be late for her visit with Service User A and that Person A was not happy. JM then spoke with Person A and he expressed concerns regarding the Registrant and said that he did not want her to work with his son. He alleged that the Registrant had twice attended his house on visits to his son smelling of alcohol. The next day, on 4 November 2016, Person A had his older son write an email on his behalf to JM setting out his concerns regarding the Registrant. In this email he complained that the Registrant had visited his home on three or four occasions on each of which he believed that she was “intoxicated”; she had also been late on every occasion. These matters form the basis of the allegations in Particular 3.

13. DB, then the Operations Manager at Sanctuary Personnel, was appointed to undertake an investigation into the concerns relating to the Registrant being intoxicated at work, in particular when she visited School A. In the course of this investigation, on 8 November 2016, the Registrant wrote an email to DB requesting further details of the allegations against her and giving details of her recollection in relation to the events in question. She maintained that she had not been under the influence of alcohol when she attended the school but indicated that she did not feel herself on the day in question and had taken various doses of medication. The Registrant had made a similar denial in a text message sent on 3 November 2016 in response to being told to go home pending an investigation. She had claimed that she was “100% not under the influence of alcohol” and said she thought that she had “taken double the prescribed amount of medication with an energy drink [she] had on route to [her] appointment”.

14. On 23 November 2016, DB made a referral to the HCPC in relation to the Registrant.


Decision on Facts

15. In considering this case the Panel bore in mind that the burden of proving the facts rests upon the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. It has taken account of all the evidence presented to it, namely the written and oral evidence of the witnesses listed below, together with the documentary evidence provided by the HCPC and the Registrant. It has also considered the detailed submissions of Mr Dite and the Registrant, and has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

16. The Panel particularly noted the Legal Assessor’s advice that, notwithstanding that the HCPC’s Procedure Rules do not have a specific provision which indicates that a panel can find the allegations proved by simply relying upon the Registrant’s admissions of those allegations, there was likewise nothing in the Rules to prevent it from doing so if it was satisfied that the admissions were well-informed, not made for reasons of expediency or duress and that they accorded with the evidence before the Panel in relation to that particular. Consequently, the Panel noted that it would be entitled to treat such admissions as determinative of the factual allegations, particularly if the admissions tallied with the evidence presented by the HCPC.

17. The Panel heard evidence from the following witnesses for the HCPC:

• DB, Operations Manager at Sanctuary Personnel;

• PS, Special Educational Needs Coordinator at School B;

• LW, Teaching Assistant at School B;

• NW, Head Teacher at School A; and

• Person A, Service User A’s father.

18. The Panel also heard evidence from the Registrant.  

Assessment of witness credibility

19. The Panel found the Registrant’s evidence in relation to the disputed particulars to lack consistency and clarity. To be fair to the Registrant, the Panel noted her admission that her memory was not as good as it used to be and that she could not remember some of what happened on 3 November 2016. By way of example, the Panel noted that the Registrant had been inconsistent and hesitant about whether she had taken double medication that day. Consequently, in relation to the events of 3 November 2016, the Panel found that she was not a particularly compelling witness. Having said that, in relation to the difficulties in her private life and how they had resulted in her having a problematic relationship with alcohol, the Panel found the Registrant to be an open and a candid witness in the evidence she had given.

20. The Panel found DB to be credible. She came across as having no hidden agenda. Her approach to the investigation was responsible and reliant upon contemporaneous records. The one potentially significant inconsistency in her documentary evidence (whether the Registrant had consumed half a glass, or half a bottle, of wine during the evening of 2 November 2016), was clarified by the Registrant candidly indicating that she had consumed the greater amount of wine on that occasion. The Panel found that there was no reason not to accept DB’s evidence.

21. The Panel found PS, LW and NW all to be credible and reliable witnesses. The Panel noted that none of them had met the Registrant before 3 November 2016 and therefore there was no history to influence their view of her. Their approach to her was universally caring and one of concern for her wellbeing. Almost all of their stated first reactions to the Registrant were that she had a health issue and none of them leaped to any immediate conclusion that she was under the influence of alcohol. Their approach was demonstrably objective. In addition, their evidence on the core issues regarding how the Registrant was behaving (that she was unsteady on her feet, that she was slurring her words and that at times she appeared to act aggressively) and in relation to her smelling of alcohol, was entirely consistent, both individually and collectively. Any inconsistencies were related to peripheral matters and were to be expected of lay witnesses who would in any event have different perspectives of the events in question. Furthermore, they reported what the Registrant had disclosed to them individually about her personal background, information which could not have otherwise been known to them.

22. The Panel found Person A to be credible. He came over as genuine and dignified. Moreover, his evidence was not exaggerated. In his oral evidence he did not complain about her smelling of alcohol on every visit, but only in relation to two visits, and otherwise did not regard her as being under the influence of alcohol. Further, his primary concern was not that she was smelling of alcohol (which he explained that he viewed as her private matter) especially since he was satisfied with how she engaged with his son, Service User A, but that she was unreliable (in that several arranged visits were cancelled by her and that she had been late for appointments).

Particular 1 – Found proved by way of admission

While registered as a Social Worker and either during the course of your employment as a Social Worker at the London Borough of Bexley or during the course of your duties as a Social Worker with the London Borough of Newham:

1. On 26 August 2015 at Bexley Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of the following offence:

a) On 6 August 2015 drove a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 99 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

23. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s admission was well-informed, not made for reasons of expediency or duress and that it accorded with the evidence before the Panel in relation to this particular, including a copy of a court Memorandum of Conviction. Consequently, the Panel concluded that it would be entitled to treat her admission as determinative of the factual allegation, particularly since the conviction was a matter of public record.

Particular 2 – Found Proved

2. On 3 November 2016, you attended School A, intending to visit a Service User,

a) while under the influence of alcohol, and

b) while smelling of alcohol.

24. The Registrant denied this allegation.

25. The Panel noted the evidence presented to it by the HCPC. PS stated that the Registrant had told her that she was at the school to see a student and had told her the name of the student who she said she was there to see. Moreover, the Registrant herself told the Panel that she was at the school intending to visit a service user. Accordingly, the Panel considers that the only aspects of Particular 2 that are in dispute are whether the Registrant was under the influence of alcohol and whether she smelled of alcohol when she attended the school.

26. In assessing those matters, the Panel took account of the hand written statement produced by LW on 4 November 2016, the day after the incident, in which she described how on 3 November 2016 she had been returning from her lunch break when she had seen the Registrant standing outside double doors at the entrance to the school. LW says she saw the Registrant fall down, as if sitting down, although without hitting her head. She went to help her up and at that point she smelt alcohol on the Registrant’s breath. She was clear in her evidence to the Panel that it was the smell of alcohol and not the smell of energy drinks or a smell related to a health condition, a smell with which she was familiar and described as “distinctive”. There was evidence that the Registrant had been asked whether she had a health condition and she had said that she did. The Registrant gave evidence to the Panel that she had been diagnosed with this health condition. LW also noted that it was not a stale alcohol smell (like someone who had drunk the night before) but rather a fresh smell of alcohol.

27. In addition, when speaking to the Registrant, LW noted that she was slurring her words and rambling. She told the Panel that she thought the Registrant was drunk. In her written statement made on 4 November 2016, LW noted that the Registrant had told her “she didn’t do this much” and told the Panel that she had assumed that this meant drinking. LW also told the Panel that in the course of their interaction, the Registrant repeatedly put her hand inches away from LW’s face, which LW regarded as an inappropriate invasion of her personal space. That, combined with the way she was speaking, which included her tone, seemed to LW to be aggressive. LW told the Panel that it was apparent to her that the Registrant was intoxicated.

28. LW then described how the Registrant started to “totter” and then fall through the double doors, turning as she did so, coming to a stop in an upright position against an inside wall. LW then went to get NW to assist her.

29. The Panel noted that NW described how he helped the Registrant into his office. He noted that she appeared incoherent and that she was unsteady on her feet. He told the Panel he had a clear recollection of linking arms with the Registrant in order to steady her. His initial impression was that she was in shock following the fall, or otherwise experiencing a health difficulty, something that was not uncommon at the school with pupils and parents. However, he then smelt alcohol, a “fresh smell of alcohol as though she may have consumed alcohol recently”. He said that it was a prevalent smell in his office, it was not a stale smell, and it was not a smell that could be confused with any other smell.

30. In his statement dated 23 August 2017, NW described the Registrant as “speaking in a mixture of slurred words and unrelated words” and as repeating herself continuously. He told the Panel it was a “monologue of a great many mixed up statements that went on for some time … it was more of a stream of consciousness type dialogue”. He also described her as getting angry when the subject of calling someone and getting a taxi was raised.

31. NW told the Panel that putting together “the alcohol smell, the behaviour patterns, the language, and the mobility issue” he came to the conclusion that “alcohol was a factor in the events that day”. He told the Panel that in his view, the smell of alcohol explained “some of her behaviours”. The Panel finally noted that NW told the Panel that his observations of the Registrant spanned about an hour on that afternoon, during which time he was in close proximity to and engaged with the Registrant.

32. The Panel took account of the email written on 3 November 2016 by PS who also became involved with the Registrant on that day. In her email she described the Registrant as “veering between being incoherent and coherent” and further noted that she said that she could smell alcohol on the Registrant. She also wrote that the Registrant was “bordering on aggressive and very wobbly on her feet”. These observations were repeated in her witness statement dated 14 September 2017 and confirmed in her evidence to the Panel. In her statement, PS noted that she thought the Registrant was drunk. In her evidence, she told the Panel that this was based on the smell of alcohol, the exaggerated hand gestures, and the slurring of words. She told the Panel that she was the one sitting right next to the Registrant in NW’s office, that she could smell the alcohol on her breath, and that she was certain she had been drinking, that it was not a smell that might be associated with a health condition and that she was “99%-100%” sure it was alcohol.

33. The Panel also noted the evidence that Person A gave of four telephone calls he had with the Registrant on 3 November 2016. In her written account which was sent to DB on 22 November 2016 by email, the Registrant confirmed that she had spoken to Person A on the way to the school when she was in a taxi. In his statement dated 6 September 2017, Person A said that: “It was during this telephone call that I believed [the Registrant] to be drunk as she was not making sense and slurring her words”. A similar description of this telephone call is contained in the email that was typed and sent on Person A’s behalf to the Registrant’s Line Manager, JM, by Person A’s son on 4 November 2016. Person A went on to say in his statement “….I did not want her to come and visit Service User A”. In his oral evidence, he told the Panel: “I realised she was drunk therefore I didn’t want her coming to my son”. He said that first she had said she would come at 5.00pm and by the fourth call, she was suggesting 7.00pm to 8.00pm. Person A did not think this was normal and because of the way she spoke and the slurring of her words, he had concluded that she was drunk.

34. The Panel went on to note the Registrant’s written and oral evidence. She denied that she was under the influence of alcohol on 3 November 2016 and said that she had not had any alcoholic drink that day. She accepted that she had drunk half a bottle of wine on the evening of 2 November 2016 prior to retiring to bed at around 9.00pm. She had been asked by JM to attend a LAC Review (involving a child she had never seen before) in Bromley on behalf of a colleague on 3 November 2016. The Registrant had agreed to do this as she was told that the meeting was at 10.00am and that she would be finished by 12.00 noon, which would give her 2 hours to be able to return to Newham for a scheduled visit to Person A’s home at 2.00pm.

35. The Registrant told DB during a telephone call on 22 November 2016 that on 3 November 2016 she took her prescribed medication together with some other medications as she felt that she was coming down with something. She had to take three buses to the LAC family address, which was in an area that she was not familiar with travelling to. She arrived at about 10.10am to discover that the review had in fact been scheduled to start at 10.30am. The review ended at around 12.30pm. Whilst walking back towards the bus stop to return to Newham she called the office to feedback her visit. JM was not available but the person she spoke to told and texted her to say that JM had said that she needed to visit the school of the service user whose LAC review she had attended that morning (School B), which was linked to School A.

36. The Registrant was not sure how to get to the school from the carer’s house but after seeking directions and being told to walk towards a train station, she caught a taxi which took her to the school. On the way, as she was concerned that she would not be able to make the meeting with Service User A, she telephoned Person A to cancel the meeting and apologise. Person A was not happy but the Registrant told him that she would contact him the next day to reschedule the appointment. The Registrant told the Panel that whilst in the taxi, she took more medication and consumed a ‘Monster’ energy drink.

37. The Registrant said that upon arrival at the school (which she had visited before whilst working with Bexley Council), she went to the main reception and was directed to School B. However, she inadvertently went through an entrance to School A where she subsequently tripped and fell (as she was feeling a little light-headed and dizzy). She recalled a member of staff asking if she was “OK” and taking her to a separate room; explaining why she was there; saying that she was feeling a little dizzy; and also saying that there was no need to complete an accident form as she was “fine”. She said that she found it hard to explain herself as all the teachers with her were from School A and not School B and she believed that they did not appear to understand her role.

38. In her written statement she said that she eventually told the staff that she would feedback to her manager the need to book in advance to see a child at school, as she understood that it could appear to be unprofessional not to have informed the school of the visit beforehand, especially when she was to see a client she had never met before. She recalled that the staff members were concerned about her going home unaccompanied due to her dizziness and the fall and they called a taxi for her.

39. The Registrant said that she was unsure if it was the medication, combined with paracetamol, consuming an energy drink and not eating, or because she was feeling unwell, but she felt light headed, so when she got home her partner accompanied her to their nearby hospital to get medical advice. However, when told that she would have to wait for a number of hours, she just went home and rested.

40. In reaching its decision, the Panel preferred the more reliable evidence of the three HCPC witnesses, PS, LW and NW, to the evidence of the Registrant. In relation to the core issue of the Registrant’s presentation they gave consistent and plausible evidence about the Registrant’s demeanour and the impression that she had been drinking alcohol. Notwithstanding that the Registrant was clear that she had not drunk alcohol that day, her inconsistent and sometimes poor recollection of the events of 3 November 2016 led the Panel to conclude that her evidence was less reliable than the other witnesses.

41. The Panel approached its task by first considering Particular 2(b), namely whether the Registrant attended the school “while smelling of alcohol” since it considered that its decision on this particular would better inform it when it came to consider Particular 2(a). The Panel noted that all three witnesses had been open-minded about the Registrant and had each independently considered the possibility of her presentation being due to her being unwell – it was clear that they had not rushed to judge the Registrant. The Panel considered that this would be consistent with them all being involved in teaching and their evidence of dealing with pupils and parents having falls on the school premises.

42. Moreover, their evidence about the core issues of the Registrant’s behaviour and about her smelling of alcohol was consistent and supported by the contemporaneous documentary evidence produced to the Panel. The three witnesses presented as grounded individuals with experience of people with health conditions as well as experience of people who have consumed alcohol.

43. The Panel also noted that these witnesses had spent some time in close proximity to the Registrant, in some cases up to an hour, and therefore had been well placed to observe her and reach some conclusions about her condition. In addition, all had had some experience of dealing with health conditions, including the Registrant’s health condition, and indeed had considered the possibility that the Registrant’s demeanour was due to that condition. However, all were clear that they able to distinguish the distinctive smell of a health condition from the smell of the breath of a person who had been drinking alcohol, and that the smell of the Registrant was consistent with a person who had been drinking alcohol. Witnesses LW and PS were clear the smell came from her breath.

44. In addition, the Panel noted that all three witnesses made the distinction between a smell of stale and of fresh alcohol and indicated that they were clear that they smelled fresh alcohol. Taking all these factors together, the Panel was led to the conclusion that, on balance, the HCPC had proved its case in relation to Particular 2(b).

45. The Panel then considered Particular 2(a), which alleged that the Registrant attended the school “while under the influence of alcohol”. It noted its finding that the Registrant smelled of alcohol and the evidence of the three HCPC witnesses that it was a smell of fresh alcohol. This, in itself, is evidence that the Registrant was under the influence of alcohol. In addition, however, there is other supportive circumstantial evidence.

46. In the first place, the Panel noted the evidence of Person A who said that he spoke to the Registrant by telephone on about four occasions that afternoon during which he reached the conclusion that she was “intoxicated” or had been drinking alcohol. The Panel sees no reason not to accept his evidence on this point. His evidence is particularly persuasive since at the time of the telephone calls he would not have known what happened at the school.

47. There is also the evidence provided by the Registrant about her problematic relationship with alcohol and her occasional use of it over a number of years as a coping mechanism. The Registrant told the Panel that she had unresolved personal difficulties in 2013/14, relating to a bereavement which occurred when she was aged seven, during which she had resorted to alcohol, also using it to relieve stress. She had demonstrated some self-awareness at the time by voluntarily attending support meetings, which had provided some support. However, in 2015, she was arrested for drink driving in circumstances where she had consumed alcohol at her grandmother’s home, initially not intending to drive home but doing so eventually to resolve an ongoing argument that she had had with her partner. Once again, the Panel noted the reliance upon alcohol at a time of stress. To her credit, she once again started to attend support meetings for a period of time after her conviction.

48. Finally, she told the Panel that in 2016 she had started a new job with Newham in January 2016 and had then suffered a double bereavement, of her grandmother in March 2016 and then her mother in May 2016. She began to use alcohol again on a regular basis, particularly to assist her to sleep.

49. From this evidence, the Panel felt able to identify a pattern of the Registrant using alcohol as a coping mechanism at times of stress – indeed, during her cross-examination she accepted that her personal difficulties were sometimes a trigger for her to consume alcohol. The Panel further noted that the Registrant accepted that, on 3 November 2016, she was under stress. In the first place she had been asked at short notice to cover a colleague’s work in an unfamiliar location without the advantage of being able to drive there (she was still subject to her disqualification from driving). She had been misinformed of the time of the LAC Review which meant that her appointment with Service User A was in jeopardy and she had subsequently been asked to attend the school to see the Looked After Child. She therefore had to cancel her appointment with Service User A, much to the displeasure of Person A since the appointment had already been reorganised on a number of occasions. Finally, she was returning to a school where she had worked with a number of service users prior to her conviction, about which she was ashamed. The Panel also noted that in her evidence the Registrant referred to being under stress. Consequently, the Panel was led to the conclusion that the stress that she was under on 3 November 2016 was consistent with earlier stressful situations which had triggered her resorting to alcohol.

50. The Panel has considered the Registrant’s evidence that she believed that her behaviour and actions were more likely caused by her reaction to a cocktail of medication and energy drinks. However, the Panel noted the Registrant’s inconsistent evidence as to what exactly she had taken that day, and when, and to her variable evidence about whether she had taken a double dose of her prescribed medication. For instance, in her text message sent by her partner on her behalf to JM at 3:30pm on 3 November 2016, she referred to taking double the prescribed amount of her medication, but in her subsequent written statement sent on 22 November 2016, she did not refer to this. In her oral evidence, the Registrant said that she was not sure whether she had taken a double amount of her medication or not. In addition, even if it was the case that the Registrant had taken such a mixture as described, there is no reliable evidence before the Panel about the effect that such a cocktail would have upon the Registrant. It would be speculative for the Panel to reach any conclusions about the effect of the combination of these items upon the Registrant. The Panel therefore does not accept the Registrant’s suggestions on this point.

51. The Panel also notes that there was no complaint about the Registrant’s demeanour during the LAC Review in the morning of 3 November 2016, but concludes that this is not determinative since there was a period of time between her leaving that review meeting and arriving at the school during which she could have consumed alcohol.

52. Taking all these factors into account, the Panel therefore concludes that at the time she attended the school on 3 November 2016 she was under the influence of alcohol to a degree sufficient to prove the particular. The Panel therefore finds Particular 2(a) proved.

Particular 3 – Found Proved

3. In relation to Service User A, on unknown dates between approximately May 2016 and November 2016 you attended home visits and smelt of alcohol.

53. The Registrant denied this allegation.

54. Service User A is a young man who had turned 18 years old in early 2016, has Down’s Syndrome and requires one to one support. He is cared for on a full-time basis by his father, Person A.

55. In or around June 2016 the Registrant first attended the home of Service User A for an introductory visit, accompanying Service User A’s previous social worker. Person A told the Panel that on two out of the three subsequent home visits the Registrant made to Service User A he had noticed that she smelt of alcohol.

56. The first such visit was in or around June 2016, in relation to which Person A noted in his statement dated 6 September 2017 that: “I would not say that she was behaving as though she was drunk. She appeared sober, but she smelt as though she had consumed alcohol”.

57. In or around July or August 2016, Person A said the Registrant attended for another home visit for Service User A. He stated:


“…I did not believe her to be under the influence of alcohol as she was not acting as though she was drunk. However, she did smell as though she had recently consumed alcohol”.

58. Person A described a final visit, taking place on or around August or September 2016. However, he said he did not think the Registrant smelt of alcohol on that occasion.

59. Person A told the Panel that (like a non-smoker who comes into contact with a smoker) he does not drink alcohol, so when he is in close contact with those who have been drinking alcohol he is able to recognise this quickly. He told the Panel that he has friends and neighbours who are drinkers and so he knows the smell. Person A also told the Panel that he knows the smell of energy drinks and the smell he smelt on those two occasions was not that. He had opened the door to the Registrant and had smelt alcohol coming from her mouth.

60. Person A made it clear that, other than the smell of alcohol, he did not have any concerns regarding the Registrant’s behaviour during the two visits referred to. He told the Panel the Registrant was a guest in his home and he did not feel it was his place to ask whether she had been drinking before she had arrived. He had no criticism of the Registrant’s interaction with his son on those or any other occasions. As for the reasons why he decided he did not want the Registrant working with his son, Person A explained to the Panel that he was concerned with her unreliability, compounded by his impression that she was drunk when she telephoned him on 3 November 2016 to rearrange the visit.

61. The Panel took account of the Registrant’s evidence. She stated that at no time immediately prior to visiting Service User A’s home had she consumed alcohol and suggested that what Person A had smelled on those two occasions was possibly an energy drink, which she had been consuming regularly during that period. She also indicated that she had in the past seen Person A in meetings outside his home, for instance at Service User A’s school (although Person A said that he could not recall such occasions), and that he had not made any complaint about her on those occasions. The Panel also noted that there was no information before it that any other service user or parent had made any similar complaint about the Registrant.

62. The Panel saw no reason not to believe the evidence of Person A. He was fair and objective and did not exaggerate his evidence, stating that he had not noticed alcohol on her breath on every occasion that she attended his home. Moreover, he confirmed that, in any event, at such times the Registrant did not act as though she was under the influence of alcohol. In addition, Person A gave a very plausible explanation as to how, even though he did not use alcohol himself, he was familiar with its smell. Finally, the Panel noted that the period of time during which he noticed the smell of alcohol on the Registrant’s breath (around June to August 2016) coincided and followed the period when the Registrant admitted she was using alcohol on a regular basis after the deaths of her grandmother and mother.

63. Taking all these factors into account the Panel concludes that the HCPC has proved Particular 3.


Decision on Grounds

64. Having found the facts proved in this matter, the Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved, individually or collectively, amounted to the statutory grounds of Conviction (in relation to Particular 1) and Misconduct (in relation to Particulars 2 and 3).

65. In relation to the ground of Conviction, the Panel noted the relevant Practice Note and the advice of the Legal Assessor who indicated that the conviction had to be sufficiently serious to call a Registrant’s fitness to practise into question. The Panel reminded itself that that the Registrant had been involved in a collision with two other motor vehicles; had given a reading of around three times the legal limit of alcohol in her breath; had been sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours; had been initially disqualified from holding a driving licence for 24 months; and had to pay costs and other financial penalties. The Panel noted that the accident did not result in any injuries and that only the Registrant had been endangered, but nonetheless had little hesitation in concluding that it was sufficiently serious (especially taking account of the high reading and the length of the disqualification) that the statutory ground of Conviction had been made out. It also noted that, to her credit, the Registrant accepts that this conviction was a serious matter which was potentially damaging to the social work profession, notwithstanding that it occurred out of office hours. However, the Panel came to its own independent conclusions about the matter.

66. In relation to Misconduct, the Panel noted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the cases of:

• Roylance v General Medical Council [2000] 1 A.C. 311,

• Cheatle v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin),

• Nandi v. General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317,

• Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin),

• R v. Nursing and Midwifery Council (ex parte Johnson and Maggs) (No 2) [2013] EWHC 2140 (Admin) and,

• Schodlok v GMC [2015] EWCA Civ 769.

The Panel noted that misconduct must be serious and amount to a Registrant’s conduct falling far below the standards expected of a registered social worker.
67. The Panel noted Mr Dite’s submissions that a number of standards in both the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016), and in the Standards of Proficiency for Social Workers had potentially been breached. The Panel agrees that the following paragraphs of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics have been breached by the Registrant’s actions or failings:

“6.3  You must make changes to how you practise, or stop practising, if your physical or mental health may affect your performance or judgement, or put others at risk for any other reason.”

“9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”

68. Further, the Panel agrees that the following paragraphs of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Social Workers (2012) have been breached by the Registrant’s actions or failings:

“3.1  understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.

3.2 understand the importance of maintaining their own health and wellbeing.”

69. The Panel considered each particular which had been proved in turn.

Particulars 2(a) and 2(b)

70. The Panel reminded itself that it had found that the Registrant attended a school under the influence, and smelling, of alcohol. She was at work but demonstrably unfit for work, as indicated by her rambling speech and having fallen over. She was there to see a vulnerable service user and it was the intervention of the teaching staff that ensured she did not come into contact with them. Moreover, her condition was such that the school staff were concerned enough to isolate her from pupils, for her and their wellbeing and because of her unpredictability. The Panel also noted that, to her credit, the Registrant accepted that being under the influence or even smelling of alcohol whilst at work as a social worker was a serious matter which was potentially damaging to the social work profession. However, the Panel came to its own independent conclusions about the matter.

71. The Panel noted the Code of Conduct set out in the handbook of the Registrant’s employer at the time, Sanctuary Social Care, (which was specified as being in addition to those in the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics) and in particular Code (iv) which stated that “It is forbidden to be under the influence of alcohol…at any time whilst on duty during an assignment…such behaviour could result in dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct”. The Panel considered that, although this code did not bind it, such an injunction was not untypical of employers in the social care professions and is indicative of how seriously mixing the consumption of alcohol with work is viewed. The public, service users, and other professionals are entitled to expect that a social worker will be engaged, fully focussed and capable of interacting appropriately, which would not be likely if the social worker in question had been drinking alcohol. Moreover, smelling of alcohol whilst at work is unprofessional, sets a poor example in relation to lifestyle matters and gives entirely the wrong impression, particularly when considering that social workers are there to help members of the public including those who themselves have problems with alcohol.

72. The Panel appreciated this was an isolated occasion; that no harm resulted to anyone; and that the Registrant’s behaviour was not apparently witnessed by the service user or parents; but nonetheless it was witnessed by a number of pupils and school staff and therefore had the potential to bring the social work profession into disrepute.

73. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s actions in relation to Particulars 2(a) and 2(b) did fall far short of the standards expected of a registered social worker; would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners; and thus amount to misconduct.

Particular 3

74. The Panel reminded itself that it had found that the Registrant attended the home of a service user on two occasions smelling of alcohol. It also noted that, to her credit, the Registrant accepted that smelling of alcohol whilst at work as a social worker was a serious matter which was potentially damaging to the social work profession. However, the Panel came to its own independent conclusions about the matter.

75. The Panel repeats its observations above in relation to Particular 2(b). The Registrant was attending at a service user’s home in the course of her employment with the smell of alcohol on her breath; and this occurred on more than one occasion.

76. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s actions in relation to Particular 3 did fall far short of the standards expected of a registered social worker; would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners; and thus amount to misconduct.


Decision on Impairment

77. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel has taken account of the submissions of the parties, the oral testimony of the Registrant and the advice of the Legal Assessor. It has also taken account of the HCPC Practice Note on Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired.

78. The Panel is aware that, in determining whether fitness to practise is impaired, it must take account of a range of issues which, in essence, comprise two components, namely the ‘personal’ component (the current competence and behaviour of the individual Registrant) and the ‘public’ component (the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession). It appreciates that not every finding of misconduct will automatically result in a Panel concluding that fitness to practice is impaired. Moreover, it cannot adopt a simplistic view and conclude that fitness to practise is not impaired simply on the basis that, since the allegation arose, a Registrant has corrected matters or ‘learned his/her lesson’. Although the Panel’s task is not to punish past wrongdoings, it does need to take account of past acts or omissions in determining whether a Registrant’s present fitness to practice is impaired. The Panel should asses the likelihood of repetition and the potential for harm that may then arise and the Registrant’s culpability for any such harm. Finally, the Panel is to consider whether a Registrant has demonstrated insight into his/her attitude and failings.

79. The Panel first of all considered the Public component. It concluded that, in relation to all three particulars, a finding of impairment was justified.

80. In relation to Particular 1, it again noted that the Registrant was three times over the legal limit and that she had collided with other motor vehicles. Notwithstanding that she had pleaded guilty and that no injuries were caused, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was such that the need to declare and uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances. A right-minded member of the public, with full knowledge of all of the circumstances would be concerned if a finding of current impairment were not made.

81. In relation to Particulars 2(a) and (b) it again noted that the Registrant was at work; had turned up at a school to see a vulnerable service user but was in no condition to see them; and that members of staff at the school were sufficiently concerned about her presentation that they were anxious to isolate her from pupils. Once again, even taking account of the fact that it was a single occurrence and no harm had resulted to any service user or member of the public, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was such that the need to declare and uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances. Social workers are entrusted with significant responsibility for the care of vulnerable individuals. The public is entitled to expect that social workers who are at work are able to carry out those responsibilities. Working when under the influence of alcohol and demonstrably unable to work does not meet those expectations. A right-minded member of the public, with full knowledge of all of the circumstances would be concerned if a finding of current impairment were not made.

82. In relation to Particular 3, the Panel noted that the Registrant visited the home of a service user during the course of her employment with the smell of alcohol on her breath; and that she had done so on more than one occasion. Even though there was no suggestion that her conduct was affected by alcohol, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was such that the need to declare and uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances. Social workers are entrusted with significant responsibility for the care of vulnerable individuals. The public is entitled to expect that social workers present themselves professionally so that they can carry the authority required of their role and the confidence of those with whom they engage. Attending work smelling of alcohol does not meet those expectations. A right-minded member of the public, with full knowledge of all of the circumstances would be concerned if a finding of current impairment were not made.

83. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on public interest grounds in respect of all three particulars.

84. In relation to the personal component, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

85. The Panel took the view that the misconduct found in this case was capable of being remedied. It noted the Registrant’s evidence about her problematic relationship with alcohol and was drawn to the conclusion that she was to be given significant credit for the insight that she has demonstrated in relation to it. The Panel has already noted her earlier candour and openness about her difficulties with alcohol and how they were triggered by stress. Moreover, it notes her evidence that she considers she has developed tools and skills to manage her earlier misuse of alcohol such as: changing the way she takes her medication; adopting “mindfulness” techniques; re-engaging with the bereavement counsellors at Cruse Bereavement Care; developing her communication with others (friends, family, her partner and her GP) so as to bring her problems out into the open instead of keeping them to herself as she was prone to do in the past; eating regularly; and making changes to her diet, such as now drinking more water having abandoned the consumption of energy drinks. She told the Panel that she continues to be prescribed medication for her health conditions. She told the Panel that when required, perhaps on a weekly basis, she uses medication as a coping mechanism.

86. In addition, the Registrant told the Panel about her new approach to alcohol. She now avoids drinking at home (notwithstanding that there is alcohol in the house); she appoints herself as the designated driver when going out with her partner (which means that she does not drink and drive); and she now just drinks at family and friends’ get-togethers and then only a maximum of four or five half pints of beer (the last such occasion being about a month ago). The Panel acknowledges that these are significant and relevant changes in respect of which the Registrant must be given due credit. In addition, the Panel has observed the Registrant representing herself over a four day period and has formed the opinion that she has presented herself well and has not given any indication that she has resorted to alcohol support during what must be a particularly stressful time.

87. In addition, the Panel takes account of the Registrant’s evidence that she has, since the incidents in question, continued to work in the social care setting, notwithstanding that she has been unable to work as a social worker due to an Interim Suspension Order. Moreover, she gave a history of her involvement in social care work since 1999 (qualifying as a social worker in 2008) in passionate terms. Finally, the Panel notes that there is no evidence before it of any previous concerns with her practice.

88. Having said all that, however, the Panel is not entirely confident that the Registrant fully understands her relationship with alcohol, nor can the Panel be entirely confident that she is capable of managing stresses in her life without turning to alcohol as a coping strategy as she has done in the past.

89. The difficulty facing the Panel is that it only has the Registrant’s uncorroborated evidence of these changes; there is, for instance, no evidence from her GP confirming the medical support given to her and her response to it, nor is there any evidence from her current or recent employers about how she has dealt with any stresses or difficulties in such employment. In addition, although the Registrant may well be confident that she has developed appropriate coping strategies, she has not had the opportunity of putting these into practice whilst working as a registered social worker with all the additional responsibilities and pressures that come with that role. Accordingly, the Panel is drawn to the conclusion that it could not discount the distinct possibility that, in the future, the Registrant might, if she returns to practise as a full-time registered social worker, once again respond to the particular stresses of that profession by resorting to alcohol. The Panel wishes to make it clear that these reservations are not intended to belittle the progress that she appears to have made and the insight that she has developed to date; it acknowledges that the Registrant has made significant strides but the Panel considers that she is still working through her problems, and although the likelihood of her repeating her misconduct is not high, the Panel considers that it cannot be sufficiently discounted.

90. In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore concludes that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component ground.


Decision on Sanction

91. In reaching its decision on sanction the Panel took account of the submissions of Mr Dite and the Registrant, the Indicative Sanctions Policy (ISP) document and the advice of the Legal Assessor, which it accepted. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, although they may have that effect. It appreciated that the primary purpose of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk which the registrant may pose to those who use or need her services. It noted, however, that in reaching its decision, panels must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes: the deterrent effect to other registrants; the reputation of the profession concerned; and public confidence in the regulatory process. In addition, the Panel noted that it must act proportionately, which requires it to strike a balance between the interests of the public and those of the Registrant.

92. Mr Dite asked the Panel to bear in mind the ISP. He fairly indicated that there were mitigating features in this matter such as the Registrant’s personal circumstances at the times of the incidents in question; her passion for social work; and that she had engaged fully with the process and presented herself well during the hearing. However, he reminded the Panel that it had decided that the Registrant had not yet developed full insight into her failings and that the matters in question were serious.

93. The Registrant submitted that conditions of practice would be the appropriate sanction.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

94. The Panel took account of the various mitigating factors namely:

• The Registrant’s previous good character as a social worker since her qualification in 2008;

• Her admissions in relation to Particular 1;

• The not insignificant and genuine causes for her experiencing stress at the relevant times, not least the bereavements suffered by her in quick succession in 2016;

• The fact that there is no evidence before the Panel of any actual harm being caused to anyone as a result of the Registrant’s actions in relation to all three particulars;

• Her developing insight into her failings, albeit not full insight;

• The changes that she had made in her lifestyle and the management of her medication and of alcohol, as outlined in paragraphs 85 and 86 above;

• The passion she had demonstrated for social work and for working in caring roles, exemplified by her pursuing work in that sphere since losing her job and being subject to an Interim Suspension Order;

• The fact that she had effectively served her sentence following the criminal conviction;

• Her dignified and genuine presentation of herself during the hearing, all the more commendable as the Registrant would undoubtedly have been under significant stress;

95. However, the Panel also noted the following aggravating features and in particular:

• The serious nature of the criminal conviction, as outlined in paragraph 80 above;

• The concerning circumstances surrounding the incident at the school, more particularly itemised in paragraph 81 above, albeit that this was an isolated incident;

• The circumstances relating to her attendances at the home of Person A, as set out in paragraph 82 above, which occurred on more than one occasion;

• The theme running through the period of time covered by all three particulars of a problematic misuse of alcohol by the Registrant, which had begun to manifest itself in 2013/14, whereby stressful events triggered the Registrant’s resort to alcohol as a coping mechanism;

• The somewhat chaotic lifestyle of the Registrant (exemplified by the haphazard management of her medication), albeit that she has begun to address this;

• The risk of repetition on the basis that her new-found resolve was uncorroborated and that her confidence has not been tested in a social worker setting;

Consideration of Sanction

96. Given the seriousness of the Registrant’s failings together with the other aggravating factors the Panel took the view that this was not a case that could be appropriately dealt with without a sanction. The Panel therefore went on to consider the various sanctions, beginning with the least onerous. The Panel first considered the sanction of mediation and concluded that it was not appropriate. There was no evidence before it that her previous employers would co-operate in such a process, and in any event, the matter was too serious to be resolved in this way.

97. The Panel next considered a Caution Order, which is deemed to be appropriate:

“where the lapse is isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature, there is a low risk of recurrence, the registrant has shown insight and taken appropriate remedial action. A caution order should also be considered in cases where the nature of the allegation means that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed but where the registrant has shown insight, the conduct concerned is out of character, the risk of repetition is low and thus suspension from practice would be disproportionate. A caution order is unlikely to be appropriate in cases where the registrant lacks insight.”

98. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s lapses were not isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature. In addition, a Caution would not address or remedy the Registrant’s failings or the fact that she had been out of practice for 18 months. Moreover, it was arguable that meaningful practice restrictions could be imposed; in addition, the Panel had found that there remained a risk of repetition. Consequently, the Panel concluded that, notwithstanding the Registrant’s current developing insight, such a sanction would be insufficient to address the Panel’s concerns in relation to the public interest grounds or to provide adequate protection to the public.

99. The Panel then considered the next most onerous sanction, that of a Conditions of Practice Order, and noted that this is appropriate where a failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied and where the Panel is satisfied that allowing the Registrant to remain in, or return to, practice, while subject to conditions, minimises the risk of future harm to service users. The Panel determined that, despite the seriousness of the breaches, the Registrant’s failings were capable of being remedied and indeed on her evidence she has made significant progress in this regard.

100. The Panel reminded itself of what it considered to be the real issue in this case, namely that, on occasions, the Registrant had attempted to cope with stress, either at work or outside that environment, by resorting to alcohol. The Panel therefore concluded that this was the key area that needed to be addressed and that this could be achieved by imposing conditions of practice upon her.

101. In addition, the Panel noted that before imposing conditions a Panel was to be satisfied that: the issues which the conditions sought to address were capable of correction; there was no persistent or general failure which would prevent the registrant from doing so; appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions could be formulated; the Registrant could be expected to comply with them; and a reviewing Panel would be able to determine whether those conditions have or were being met.

102. The Panel was satisfied that all these pre-conditions were met particularly since it had formed a favourable impression of the Registrant who it considered had demonstrated that she was passionate about social work and caring for others, deeply concerned about her failings and wanted to rectify them. Consequently, the Panel felt able to draft workable, appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions of practice with which the Registrant would comply.

103. Accordingly, on the information before it, the Panel was reassured that there was the required level of insight and understanding to indicate that a Conditions of Practice Order would be adhered to, they would minimise the risk of future harm to service users and thus was an appropriate and proportionate response.

104. The Panel did consider imposing the next most onerous sanction, that of a Suspension Order. It noted that the ISP indicated that a Suspension Order should be considered where a Panel believes that a Caution or Conditions of Practice would provide insufficient public protection or where the allegation is of a serious nature but unlikely to be repeated and, thus, striking off is not merited. It also noted that where there were no psychological or other difficulties preventing a registrant from understanding and seeking to remedy the failings, then suspension might be appropriate.

105. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would be disproportionate in the circumstances, particularly considering that the Registrant had been subject to an Interim Suspension Order for a considerable time and thus had not been able to commence rectifying her failings in practice, and had demonstrated that she was still keen to remedy those failings.

106. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the proportionate response is to make a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 18 months.

Order

The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that, for a period of 18 months from the date that this Order takes effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Emma Jane Walsham, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1. You must inform the HCPC within 14 days of your start date if you take up any employment or other engagement as a Social Worker.


2. While working as a Social Worker, you must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor, who must be registered as a Social Worker by the HCPC, and you must supply full details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 14 days of their appointment. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.


3. You must formulate and keep under review a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:

(i) The management of stress in and out of the workplace;

(ii) The misuse of alcohol, particularly as a coping mechanism for stress; and share this with your workplace supervisor during your regular supervision sessions.


4. Within three months of starting work as a Social Worker you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.


5. You must allow your workplace supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan and you must obtain a report from your supervisor for the purposes of a review hearing.


6. You must provide a reflective piece for the purposes of any review hearing covering at least the following matters:

(i) How you have managed stress in and out of the workplace since your return to work as a Social Worker;

(ii) How you perceive the use of alcohol, particularly as a way of managing stress, and how you have managed your consumption of alcohol since returning to work as a Social Worker;


7. You must allow your supervisor to contact the HCPC to report any concerns with your practice as a Social Worker.


8. You must comply with all requirements of the HCPC Registrations department regarding your return to practice.


9. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed as a Social Worker by any employer.


10. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.


11. 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 as a Social Worker (at the time of application);

C. Any prospective employer, seeking to employ you as a Social Worker, (at the time of your application).

D. Your General Practitioner.

Notes

 

This Order will be reviewed before its expiry on 24 November 2019.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Ms Emma Jane Walsham

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
23/04/2018 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice
10/02/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Adjourned