Mr Philip L Shaw

Profession: Hearing aid dispenser

Registration Number: HAD01326

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 29/03/2018 End: 11:30 29/03/2018

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), 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

Whilst registered as a Hearing Aid Dispenser:
1. Not Proved.
2. Whilst working as a Locum Audiologist with Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, you:
A. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User A on 8 May 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
iii. Use open fit adaptors when fitting a Zest open fit hearing aid
iv. Fit the appropriate size dome/s
B. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User B on 8 May 2014, did not:
i. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
ii. Not Proved.
iv. Not Proved.
C. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User C on 9 May 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Zest open fit hearing aid
iii. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
D. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User D on 13 May 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. Not Proved.
iii. Use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Zest and/ or Synergy hearing aid
iv. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
E. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User E on 19 May 2014, did not:
i. use open fit adaptors when fitting a Zest open fit hearing aid
iii. Communicate appropriately
F. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User F on 19 May 2014, did not:
i. use open fit adaptors when fitting a Synergy open fit hearing aid
ii. Communicate appropriately
iii. Not Proved.
iv. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
v. Not Proved.
vi. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
vii. Despite a recommendation from a previous audiologist:
(1) Fit a hearing aid in the left ear
(2) Record your reasons for not fitting a hearing aid in the left ear
G. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User G on 20 May 2014, did not:
i. use open fit adaptors when fitting a Synergy open fit hearing aid
ii. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
iii. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
iv. follow a previous audiologist’s assessment in that you initially fitted Service User G with open fitting hearing aids
v. Not Proved.
H. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User H on 21 May 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
I. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User I on 21 May 2014, did not:
i. Program hearing aids to the correct levels and/or settings
ii. Not Proved.
J. Not Proved.
K. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User K on 9 May 2014, did not:
i. Not Proved.
ii. Use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Zest open fit hearing aid
iii. Trim the retention hook adequately or at all
L. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User L on 14 May 2014 did not:
i. Communicate appropriately
ii. Not Proved.
iii. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
iv. use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Synergy open fit hearing aid
v. Adjust and/or fine tune the volume of hearing aid
M. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User M on 15 May 2014, did not:
i. Communicate appropriately
ii. Not Proved.
iii. Adjust and/or fine tune the volume of hearing aid and/or schedule a further appointment for this to be done
iv. use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Synergy open fit hearing aid
v. Program hearing aids to the correct levels and/or settings
N. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User N on 15 May 2014 did not adjust and/or fine tune the volume of the hearing aid
O. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User O on 20 June 2014 did not
i. Not Proved
ii.Not Proved
3. You provided a CV to Yeovil District Hospital on 24 June 2014 through Alexander Leigh Recruitment Agency that stated that you were employed by Yeovil District Hospital as a Locum Audiologist from October 2011 until December 2011, when this was not the case.
4. Your actions described in paragraphs 1 and 3 were dishonest.
5. The matters described in paragraphs 1 - 4 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
6. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence, your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Service:

1. This Panel was aware that written notice of these proceedings was posted by first class post to the Registrant at his registered address on 02 March 2018 and was also sent by email.  This Panel was shown documents which established the fact of the service and the identity of the Registrant’s registered address. In these circumstances this Panel accepted that proper service of the notice had been effected.
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant:

2. Ms Wills on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

3. This Panel has seen an email from the Registrant in reply to the email from the HCPC giving notice of this review hearing, in which the Registrant stated “I would advise you that I shall not be attending and that I shall not be represented”. This Panel has seen a further email from the Registrant dated 17 March 2018, in which he stated “I would advise you that I do not wish to speak with anyone on the telephone”.  This second email was in reply to an email from the HCPC, in which it was stated that arrangements could be made to enable the Registrant to participate in this review hearing by telephone. This Panel was shown a further email from the Registrant dated 22 March 2018 in which the Registrant stated that he was not attending this review hearing and would not be represented. He gave no explanation as to why he is not attending. He made comments as to the length of time that the case has taken to be heard. He was of the view that there was no risk of repetition. He also denied that he had been dishonest. This Panel was further informed by Ms Wills that there had been no other communication with the Registrant since the hearing in March 2017.

4. This Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

5. This Panel was aware of the need to consider the application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant with great caution. However, after giving the application very careful thought, this Panel has determined to allow it. Its reasons are as follows;

 • Notice of this hearing has been properly served on the Registrant.

 • The Registrant has not applied for an adjournment.

 • By the emails referred to above, the Registrant has stated that he was not going to attend this hearing or be represented, or participate by telephone. 

 • The Registrant did not attend and was not represented at the previous hearing in March 2017.

 • There is no reason to suppose that if an adjournment was granted the Registrant would attend; indeed and having regard to the three emails identified above, there is every reason to conclude that the Registrant would not attend or participate in an adjourned hearing.

 • This is a mandatory review and the Order will expire on 25 April 2018.

 • In all the circumstances the Registrant can be regarded as having waived his right to attend.


Background:

6. The Registrant was employed as a Locum Audiologist by the Trust based at Worthing Hospital (the Trust) from 8 May 2014 to 23 May 2014. The Registrant was engaged as part of the “waiting list initiative”, and his primary duty was to provide and fit hearing aids as required.

7. The Trust was provided with a copy of the Registrant’s CV prior to his appointment as a Locum Audiologist. In this CV he lists the clinical training he has undertaken.

8. While the Registrant was working at the Trust he saw 94 service users. Some of the 94 service users reported that they were experiencing problems in relation to their hearing aid fitted by the Registrant. All the service users seen by the Registrant were provided with an opportunity for a follow up appointment with a different Audiologist.

9. Following the Registrant’s departure from the Trust CM, a clinical scientist employed in the Audiology Department of Yeovil District Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“Yeovil”), received an email from a recruitment agency offering the services of the Registrant on 24 June 2014. The CV of the Registrant stated that he worked for Yeovil from October 2011 to December 2011. CM reported that the CV was incorrect in this respect because the Registrant worked at Yeovil for three days as a locum from 30 May 2012 to 1 June 2012, and did not work for Yeovil between October 2011 and December 2011.

Hearing in March 2017:

10. At the hearing in March 2017, the panel found those particulars of the Allegation, as identified above, proved. The Panel further made a finding of misconduct as specified above. The Panel stated its reasons as follows:


Decision on Grounds:
 
“The Panel decided that particulars 3 and 4 constitute misconduct and do not constitute a lack of competence. Dishonesty is a serious matter for all professionals, and embellishing a CV is dishonest and a breach of trust. Employers rely on professionals to be scrupulously honest in CVs so that appropriate reference and safeguarding checks can be made. In this case, the Registrant’s action was deliberate and dishonest, which is more serious than providing a false CV due to gross negligence.

The Registrant’s dishonest conduct in deliberately embellishing his CV was a serious breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics: standard 3 “you must keep high standards of personal conduct” and standard 13 “you must behave with honesty and integrity and make sure that your behaviour does not damage the public’s confidence in you or your profession”.

The Panel next considered the clinical matters in particular 2. The Panel did not find that particular 2(M)(iii) constituted misconduct or a lack of competence because there is no criticism of the Registrant.

The Panel decided that the clinical matters in particular 2 should be considered cumulatively. They have been grouped under one particular to demonstrate their connection and there is a repetition of similar errors.

The Registrant is an experienced Hearing Aid Dispenser. In his representations to the Panel he states that he is of nineteen years standing and that there have been no other concerns in relation to his ability. He describes in his representations his general abilities to communicate with service users and to provide aftercare instructions. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had the necessary communication skills. The Panel therefore found that the failures in the Registrant’s communication with service users and the failure to provide appropriate aftercare instructions did not constitute a lack of competence.

In the Panel’s judgment the Registrant’s communication failures were due to his unprofessional attitude towards his work. The Panel describe the Registrant’s attitude as “couldn’t care less”. This is a serious  breach of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics standards 1, 3, 7 and 10 and of the Standards of Proficiency for  Hearing Aid Dispensers paragraphs 1.b.3 and 1.b.4. Appropriate communication is a basic requirement for Hearing Aid Dispensers and the rude and curt communication described by the service users in this case is completely unacceptable. The Panel decided that the communication failures, including the failures to provide appropriate aftercare instructions, fell well below the standards expected, and was sufficiently serious to constitute misconduct.

The Panel next considered the remaining clinical failures. The Registrant in his representations submits that no induction was given to him by CC or JJ. The Panel noted that CC, having reviewed the Registrant’s CV and noting his experience and training, provided the Registrant with what she considered was an appropriate induction for an experienced and qualified Locum Audiologist. The Panel had no reason to doubt CC’s evidence.

A failure to either read or acknowledge the recommendations made by an audiologist who has carried out a previous assessment of the service user is serious. There is no justification for the Registrant’s failure and it is another aspect of his unprofessional attitude.

As an experienced Hearing Aid Dispenser the Registrant knew that he should only fit hearing aids if he had sufficient knowledge and skill relating to those hearing aids. The Registrant also knew that he should ask for assistance if he had any doubts on the correct fitting of a hearing aid. The Registrant decided to press ahead and fit the Oticon hearing aids without considering whether he required any guidance. In his representations the Registrant stated that his response to JJ was “I might of turned red in my exasperation in realising my error”. The Registrant’s immediate recognition of the error indicates that he did not lack the necessary clinical skills. In the Panel’s judgment, the Registrant’s decision to fit Oticon aids when he did not know or had forgotten the requirements for their fitting is another example of his unprofessional attitude.

The remaining failures to: trim the “retention hook”; programme the hearing aids to the correct settings; and adjust and fine tune the volume of the hearing aid taken cumulatively are also demonstrations of the Registrant’s unprofessional attitude. The Registrant had the necessary skill and ability, but did not apply his skill and ability to the level expected of a Hearing Aid Dispenser. The clinical errors were a breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics standards 1, 5, 6, 10 and 13 and a breach of the Standards of Proficiency for hearing aid dispensers paragraphs 1.a.6, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3a.

In the Panel’s judgment, the facts found in particular 2, with the exception of particular 2(M)(iii), are sufficiently serious to constitute misconduct. They do not constitute a lack of competence.”

11. Having found proved the facts as set out set out above and having made its determination on misconduct, the panel proceeded to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was thereby impaired. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Practice Note on Impairment and in particular to the two elements of impairment namely “the personal component” and “the public component”.  The Panel held that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in both respects. The Panel stated its reasons as follows:


Decision on Impairment:

“The Panel first considered the personal component, which is the Registrant’s current competence and behaviour. The Panel has no information from the Registrant on his current circumstances. The Registrant provided no references or testimonials from any recent employer. He provided a “thank you” message from a service user dated July 2010 and a “thank you” letter from a service user dated November 1998. The Panel did not give weight to these documents because they are historic and provide no information about the Registrant’s current quality of work

Prior to the hearing the Registrant submitted a response to the HCPC’s proforma in which he denied all the facts of the Allegation. The only limited admission the Registrant has made is within his representations where he accepts that he made an error with regard to the open fit adaptors. He has not demonstrated insight and has expressed no remorse.

The Panel noted that, while the clinical errors may be remediable, dishonesty is difficult to remedy. There is no evidence of any remediation. The Registrant has not provided any reassurance to the Panel that he is willing to engage with the HCPC and address his past behaviour. The Panel has identified an attitudinal issue which may not be remediable. In the Panel’s judgment there is a significant risk of repetition of similar misconduct.

When it identified problems with the Registrant’s work the Trust acted promptly and invited all the service users to attend follow up appointments. This response limited the actual harm to service users. There is evidence that some of the service users were distressed by the Registrant’s communication failures.

In the Panel’s judgment there is a risk of harm to service users if the Registrant was to repeat similar misconduct. In particular there is a risk of damage to the hearing or to the ear of a service user if hearing aids are not fitted or programmed correctly. There are also risks of harm from communication failures, if service users become frustrated and do not use their hearing aids appropriately. There is also a risk of harm to service users arising from false statements in a CV. Employers rely on the accuracy of CVs when making safeguarding checks on hearing aid dispensers who may be employed or engaged.

The Panel also noted that that the Trust was required to spend valuable time and resources on resolving the issues arising from the Registrant’s misconduct. The Panel identified that if the Registrant was to repeat similar misconduct there is a risk of financial and reputational harm to employers.

The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired, on the basis of the personal component.

The Panel next considered the critically important public policy considerations which include the need to protect service users, uphold standards of conduct and behaviour, and maintain confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

An informed member of the public would be concerned by the Panel’s conclusion that there is a significant risk of repetition of misconduct and therefore a risk to service users. They would also be concerned if a finding of impairment were not made, given the Panel’s findings.

The finding of dishonesty in this case requires the Panel to make a clear declaration that such conduct is entirely unacceptable. Given the Panel’s findings about the Registrant’s attitude, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Panel did not conclude that the Registrant’s current fitness is impaired. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the public component.”

12. The Panel concluded that a sanction was necessary. It determined that taking no action, or making a Caution Order would not be appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances of the case. Such outcomes would not protect the public or address the public interest. It explained its reasons as follows:


Decision on Sanction:

“The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of severity. It would not be sufficient to impose no sanction in the circumstances of this case because there would be no protection for service users. Public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator would be undermined if the Panel took no action. Mediation is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

A Caution Order would not be sufficient to protect the public because the Registrant would be free to practise without restriction. A Caution Order would not mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct. The misconduct in this case cannot be described as minor or isolated, and there is no evidence of remediation or insight.”

13. The Panel then considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order but concluded that in this case such an Order was inappropriate. It explained its reasons as follows:

“The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel has found that there is an attitudinal issue which underlies the Registrant’s misconduct. There is no evidence that the attitudinal issue has been addressed by the Registrant through reflection on past events, the development of insight, or remediation. The Registrant’s engagement with the HCPC process has been limited. There is therefore an insufficient foundation on which the Registrant might safely return to practise under conditions of practice. The Panel was unable to formulate workable conditions of practice which would be sufficient to protect the public.”

14. The Panel then proceeded to consider making a Suspension Order and concluded that that a 12 month Suspension Order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, both to protect the public and to meet the wider public interest. The Panel expressed its reasons as follows:

“The Panel next considered the sanctions of a Suspension Order or a Striking Off Order. Both Orders provide protection for the public because they prevent the Registrant practising as a Hearing Aid Dispenser. In considering the proportionality of a Suspension Order the Panel balanced the Registrant’s interests against the public interest. The Panel also took into account the mitigating circumstances.

The Panel considered the Registrant’s misconduct in the context of his past history. The Registrant’s apparently successful career for a period of approximately nineteen years prior to the events in the Allegation indicates that the attitudinal issues the Panel has identified may not be deep seated. The dishonesty, although serious, is limited to one misstatement in a CV relating to work history. There is not a pattern of repeated dishonesty.

Paragraph 34 of the ISP states that: “If the evidence suggests that the registrant will be unable to resolve or remedy his or her failings then striking off may be the more appropriate option. However, where there are no psychological or other difficulties preventing the registrant from understanding and seeking to remedy the failings then suspension may be appropriate”. The Panel considered carefully whether the misconduct in this case was something the Registrant might be able to resolve or remedy. Although it may be difficult for the Registrant to persuade a reviewing Panel that his attitude is no longer a cause for concern, the Panel’s view was that the prospect was not so small that it should be discounted.

The Panel bore in mind that the Registrant is not aware of the Panel’s findings of fact, and has not had an opportunity to reflect on those findings and consider his response. In these circumstances the Panel does not know whether the Registrant is capable of understanding his failings. If the Panel made a Suspension Order it would give the Registrant the opportunity to read and reflect on the decision. He may be able to demonstrate to a reviewing Panel that he understands his failings and is fit to return to practice.

The Panel considered that a Suspension Order would satisfy the wider public interest. It would mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s past behaviour. A Suspension Order would not damage public confidence in the profession or the regulator. Members of the public would expect the regulator to act, but would also recognise that the Registrant has had a long career and that the findings of misconduct relate to a relatively short period of time. Members of the public would also understand that the Registrant has not yet had an opportunity to read and understand the Panel’s findings. The Panel decided that a Suspension Order would strike an appropriate balance between the public interest concerns the Panel has identified, and the Registrant’s interests.”

15. The Panel stated that it would be disproportionate to make a Striking Off Order “today”. It stated its reasons as follows:

“The Panel considered a Striking Off Order and decided that it would be disproportionate to make such an order today. The misconduct in this case is sufficiently serious for such an order to be under serious consideration. However, the Panel decided that a Striking Off Order is not appropriate or proportionate today, given that the Registrant has not had an opportunity to read the Panel’s decision. The Registrant should be given the opportunity to demonstrate his suitability to return to practice which could be in the public interest.

The Panel decided that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Suspension Order for the maximum period of 12 months. The maximum period is appropriate to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct, and to allow him time to reflect on the Panel’s decision and prepare a considered response to it.”

16. With regard to a review by a reviewing Panel, the panel indicated what might be helpful to that Panel, stated as follows;

“The Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires. A future review Panel may be assisted by:

 • the attendance of the Registrant in person;

 • a reflective piece written by the Registrant demonstrating insight into his failings and the impact of those failings;

 • evidence demonstrating that the Registrant has kept his knowledge and skills up to date;

 • current or recent testimonials or references including any comments on the Registrant’s honesty and integrity;

 • An up to date and comprehensive CV.”


Decision of this Panel:

17. Ms Wills submitted that in view of the total lack of recent engagement by the Registrant and by his failure to comply with any of the suggestions made by the panel in March 2017 as to what would assist this Panel, the proper conclusion was that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired. Ms Wills further submitted that whilst the sanction was very much a matter for the panel this was a case in which a Striking Off Order was available and should be considered.

18. Save for the three emails from the Registrant mentioned above, there have been no representations made by, or on behalf of the Registrant. Whilst this Panel noted the references in the Registrant’s email dated 22 March 2018 to ”subsequent appointments” and to references of “communication with all my patients” and whilst this Panel noted that the HCPC was to enquire of the Registrant the significance of these remarks, this Panel in its deliberation did not make any conclusions, adverse to the Registrant as a result of those statements.

19. This Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

20. This Panel is aware that it has all the powers that are set out in Article 30 [1] of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 [The Order] and which are summarised in the letter dated 02 March 2018 addressed to the Registrant and giving notice of this hearing.

21. This Panel is aware that the process under Article 30 [1] of The Order is one of review and not one of appeal and that its function is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired and if so whether the suspension order under review remains appropriate and proportionate or should be varied or replaced by some other order.


Impairment:

22. This Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. In coming to this conclusion this Panel noted that the Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC since the hearing last year. He has not provided any of the material that the panel in March 2017 suggested would be of assistance to a reviewing Panel. This Panel determined that for precisely the same reasons as those stated by the panel in March 2017 and which are summarised above, the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. Both the personal and the public component remain engaged.


Sanction:

23. Having concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired, this Panel proceeded to consider what order is necessary, appropriate, and proportionate to protect the public and safeguard the public interest. This Panel took into account the principles of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with the public interest.

24. This Panel has had regard to the contents of the Indicative Sanctions Policy published by the HCPTS and is aware that sanctions should be considered in ascending order of severity. This Panel is aware that the purpose of sanctions is not punitive but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the public interest. The latter objective includes maintaining standards within the profession, together with public confidence in the profession and in its regulatory processes.

25. This Panel has concluded that to take no action, thus allowing the present order to lapse, or to impose a caution order would be inappropriate having regard to the nature and gravity of the matters found proved. Such outcomes would not sufficiently protect the public or the public interest.

26. This Panel further concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate. In substance, its reasons are the same as those stated by the panel in March 2017, which are summarised above. Moreover, this Panel noted the absence of any evidence that the Registrant would be in a position to, or would comply, with any Conditions, and noted further that he has produced none of the material suggested by the panel in March 2017 as being of assistance to this Panel.

27. This Panel then considered an extension of the existing Suspension Order. This Panel noted that the previous Panel has specifically referred to a Striking Off Order being under serious consideration and the Registrant should have been aware of this from the previous Panel’s determination. It was deeply troubled by the fact that the Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC since the last hearing and in particular that he has not complied with the suggestions made by the panel in March 2017 as to what would assist this Panel. This Panel noted that the previous Panel had stated, when imposing the Suspension Order that, “The Registrant should be given the opportunity to demonstrate his suitability to return to practice which could be in the public interest” and also that the Suspension Order would “allow him time to reflect on the panel’s decision and prepare a considered response to it”.

28. This Panel also noted that notwithstanding the finding of the panel in March 2017 that the Registrant “had deliberately embellished his CV” and thus the allegation of dishonesty was established, the Registrant in his email dated 22 March 2018 asserted “I have never been dishonest in my time as an audiologist and I feel that I have always shown a high degree of integrity”.

29. The Registrant has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that he has reflected on the previous Panel’s decision. He has not produced a considered response to it. He has not taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by his suspension, to demonstrate that he is suitable to return to practice.  He has produced no evidence to demonstrate that he has endeavoured to remediate the deficiencies established at the last hearing. He has not engaged with the HCPC or with this process, although he has been afforded ample opportunity to so.

30. In all the circumstances, this Panel has determined that a Suspension Order would not protect the public or safeguard the public interest. This Panel has concluded that in order to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession, in the HCPC as its regulator and to uphold proper standards of conduct and clinical performance, a Striking Off Order was necessary, appropriate and proportionate. That is the order that this Panel makes.     

Order

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Philip L Shaw from the Register on the date this order comes into effect namely 25 April 2018.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Philip L Shaw

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
29/03/2018 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Struck off
20/03/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended