Miss Glenda E Davies
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 email@example.com or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Whilst registered as a Paramedic you were convicted on 12 February 2016 at Wimbledon Magistrates Court of:
1. On 10 May 2015 at Kingston Road, London, assaulted Person A by beating her Contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
By reason of your conviction, your fitness to practise is impaired.
Hearing in Private:
1. Mr Mason for the HCPC applied for part of the hearing to be held in private on the basis that part of the evidence was likely to concern the health of the Registrant. The application was supported by the Registrant.
2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that Rule 10(1) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 permitted evidence relating to the Registrant’s health to be heard in private for the protection of her private life. The Panel had in mind the principle that all hearings should be held in public whenever possible, subject to exceptional cases where the interests of justice or the protection of the private life of the Registrant or a witness was of greater importance. The Panel concluded that part of the evidence should be heard in private in order to protect the private life of the Registrant.
3. The Registrant had been employed by the LAS since 1988 and had qualified as a Paramedic in 1995. At the time of the events leading to her conviction, she was working on the IC Desk at LAS Waterloo as a Clinical Advisor.
4. On 10 May 2015, the Registrant contacted LAS and requested an ambulance as her partner was unwell and required medical treatment. The events took place outside or near a cafe. Person A, a female Paramedic, attended the emergency call with her crew mate. Upon their arrival, the Registrant was verbally abusive towards Person A. Whilst they were inside the ambulance, the Registrant pushed Person A causing her bruising.
5. Information provided to the HCPC by the Metropolitan Police indicated that the Registrant appeared to be under the influence of alcohol at the time and was shouting threats and abuse in the street in the hearing of passers-by. Her behaviour was witnessed by police officers who attended the scene to assist the paramedics.
6. On 15 July 2015, the Registrant appeared at Wimbledon Magistrates Court and pleaded not guilty to the two offences specified in the charges in this matter. She was convicted on 12 February 2016 and was fined £240, ordered to pay compensation of £100, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20 and ordered to pay the CPS costs of £225.
7. The LAS conducted a disciplinary investigation into the matter and JHE was appointed as the Investigating Officer on 28 July 2015.
8. The Registrant disputed the accounts of events given by the witnesses and she pleaded not guilty in the proceedings.
9. The Registrant appeared at the final hearing. The Panel at that hearing had been provided with the Memorandum of Conviction from the Wimbledon Magistrates Court for 12 February 2016 and accordingly found the facts of Particulars 1 and 2 proved.
10. The statutory ground contained in Article 22(1)(a)(iii) Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 was made out by virtue of the conviction.
11. The Panel at the final hearing found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired.
12. The Panel at the final hearing imposed a Suspension Order of 12 months. It concluded that the case was too serious for any lesser order.
This review hearing
13. This is the first review. The Panel has seen the Notice of Decision and Order of the Final Hearing together with correspondence from the HCPC. The Registrant has provided a letter from her current employer. She has been employed since 9 July 2018 as a carer. He writes: ‘In that time I have [sic] her to be extremely caring, efficient, honest and hard working. I cannot fault her she is a diamond’.
14. Mr Mason for the HCPC reminded the Panel of the history of the case and of its powers as to extending, continuing, varying or revoking the order or imposing another order. He submitted that it was apparent that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Paramedic remained impaired as there had been no material change to the Registrant’s circumstances.
15. In relation to sanction, Mr Mason for the HCPC invited the Panel to impose a further Suspension Order of 12 months.
16. The Registrant gave evidence and accepted that she was currently impaired. She referred to her partner of 30 years, who remained very supportive, with whom she had 4 children. Since then she had applied for a number of jobs and obtained her current role. She gained a great deal of support from her employer. She has also been volunteering: helping the homeless in a variety of roles and going to court to support people suffering from mental illness.
17. The Registrant said that a further suspension order of 12 months would allow her to build on the progress she had made and get a portfolio together in order to demonstrate her ability to return safely to practise.
18. She named a number of health professionals whom she hoped to shadow and she wanted to provide supporting documents to a reviewing panel. She wanted to undertake continuing professional development work. She confirmed that her hope was to return to practise as a Paramedic. She said she now felt ready to start the work to achieve this.
19. In terms of the behaviour which led to her conviction she said, ‘I would be horrified as a member of public to see such behaviour’. She emphasised her previously unblemished record.
20. A substantive review is a two stage process. The first task of the Panel is to decide whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired and if so, to then consider what, if any, sanction should be imposed upon her registration. In reaching its decision, the Panel has considered all the relevant material and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes on Impairment and Indicative Sanctions Policy. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
21. The Panel had firmly in mind that the purpose of this hearing was to conduct a thorough appraisal of the Registrant’s current fitness to practise, including an assessment of future risk, and that this was not a re-hearing of the original case or previous reviews.
22. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s insight needed further development and that there has been no change of circumstances since the last hearing in terms of any continued professional development. As the Registrant had described, her health and personal circumstances had meant she was unable to deal with the issues identified by the previous Panel. Therefore, the reality is that the Registrant’s skills will have further declined since the date of the final hearing. She remains vulnerable and her underlying health condition has continued to affect her behaviour.
23. Therefore the Panel is driven to the conclusion that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired today in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
24. The nature of the misconduct was too serious to make no order or to impose a Caution Order and neither would protect the wider public interest. A Conditions of Practice Order was neither workable nor verifiable.
25. The Panel therefore concluded that an extension of the current Suspension Order for a period of 12 months was the necessary and proportionate measure to maintain public confidence in the profession. The duration of the extension would allow time for the Registrant to develop further insight and continue to engage and build upon the progress she has made to date. The Panel noted that the Registrant was committed to her role as a Paramedic and had indicated that this period of time would allow her to make the required progress.
26. The Panel suggests that a future Panel which reviews the Suspension Order in due course would be assisted by the Registrant providing information about the steps undertaken to demonstrate she is fit to return to practise. The Panel suggests, as recommendations to assist the Registrant, that she:
a. Provides any references or testimonials for paid or unpaid work;
b. Provides an up-to-date medical report from a medical practitioner responsible for her care and treatment;
c. Refers to the HCPC Return to Practise Guidance in order to develop a suitable portfolio in the light of that guidance.
That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Miss Glenda E Davies for a period of 12 months from the expiry of the existing order on 29 August 2018.
A hearing was held on 13 August 2018 in London.
History of Hearings for Miss Glenda E Davies
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|13/08/2018||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|