Dr Anthony Linford

Profession: Practitioner psychologist

Registration Number: PYL27870

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 15/10/2018 End: 16:00 17/10/2018

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Suspended

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

(Allegation as amended at the Final Hearing commencing 15 October 2018)


1. On or around 30 July 2009 you made an application to be placed on the HPC register which incorrectly stated that you were employed by:

a) Pulse Staffing, from 1 September 2009

b) Cygnet Healthcare from 1 October 2008


Whilst registered with the HCPC as a Psychologist you:

2. On or around 28 August 2016 sent your CV to Bryn Melyn Care, in an application for a vacancy, which incorrectly stated that your professional experience included:

a) Action for Children in 2013

b) Pulse, in 2009

c) Cygnet Hospital in 2008


3. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 were dishonest.


4. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 - 3 constitute misconduct.


5. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise as a Practitioner Psychologist is impaired.

 

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. On 27 July 2018, notice of this hearing was sent by first class post to the Registrant’s registered address. A copy of the notice was also sent by email. The notice contained the required particulars.

2. The Panel was satisfied on the documentary evidence provided, that the Registrant, had been given proper notice of this hearing in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant

3. Ms Mond Wedd, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised that the discretion to proceed in a Registrant's absence should only be exercised with the utmost care and caution.

4. The Panel was informed by Ms Mond Wedd that the Registrant had been in correspondence with the HCPC and had indicated a number of times that he would not be attending the substantive hearing. On 27 June 2017, the Registrant sent an email to the HCPC stating that he had retired from practice in late 2016, was no longer a resident of the UK and that he would not be able to attend the hearing into the matter, nor would he have a representative attend and wished to withdraw from the process. On 1 July 2017, the Registrant sent an email to the HCPC informing it that as he would not be able to attend, nor be represented at the hearing, he would like his previous submissions to be forwarded on his behalf. On 18 March 2018, the Registrant had sent an email to the HCPC, reiterating that he was unable to attend the hearing or have a representative attend in his place.

5. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had fulfilled its obligations and taken all reasonable steps to serve the notice on the Registrant in accordance with the Rules.

6. The Allegation dates back to 2009 and 2016. The Panel was aware that there were three witnesses who were present to give evidence.

7. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s absence was voluntary, thereby waiving his right to attend. He had not instructed a legal representative to attend on his behalf, nor had he sought an adjournment. Further, given the Registrant’s emails saying he was unable to attend, the Panel was of the view that there was no indication that he would attend (in person) a future hearing if the case were adjourned. Given that the Registrant had waived his right to attend, the Panel considered that the public interest for the hearing to take place outweighed any disadvantage to the Registrant in proceeding in his absence. It noted that three witnesses had been warned to attend day one. The Panel therefore decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

8. The Panel was nevertheless mindful that the HCPC had not informed the Registrant that it was open to him to participate in the hearing by way of Skype or telephone, the Registrant having described himself as ‘unable’ to attend.  In these circumstances, and given the seriousness of the allegations against the Registrant, the Panel considered that it was important for reasons of fairness to the Registrant that attempts were made to contact the Registrant overnight, to offer him the opportunity to participate by way of addressing the Panel.

9. The Panel instructed the Hearings Officer to email the Registrant, setting out the options, and inviting the Registrant to indicate by 9:30am on day two of the hearing whether or not he would wish to avail himself of the opportunity to address the Panel. If he indicated that he would wish to do so, then it was envisaged that this would be facilitated at around 2pm on day two. If he declined to address the Panel, or no response was received by 9:30am on day two, then the Panel would consider whether to further continue in the Registrant’s absence at that time.

10. At the start of day 2, the Hearings Officer updated the Panel on the efforts which had been made to contact the Registrant, but which had been unsuccessful. Attempts were made to telephone him on the number which he had provided as part of his registration details, but the number had not connected, and the email which had been sent to him had not been responded to. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been afforded a reasonable opportunity within the context of the hearing to participate by way of addressing the Panel. It determined to further continue with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

Application to Amend

11. Ms Mond Wedd applied to amend the allegation, in what she described as a number of minor respects. The Panel agreed to the proposed amendments. It was satisfied that these amendments would not materially change the nature of the allegation and the Registrant would not be prejudiced by them. The proposed amendments served to clarify the time of the Registrant’s initial application to the Register (Particular 1) and the time when he was on the HCPC Register (Particular 2).


Background

12. The Registrant is a Practitioner Psychologist registered with the HCPC.

13. Having trained and qualified abroad, the Registrant submitted an application, date stamped 30 July 2009, to be admitted to the HCP Register (as it was at that time). His application for admission was successful.

14. It is alleged that within that application, the Registrant included details of employment which incorrectly stated that he had been employed by Cygnet Hospital from 1 October 2008, and Pulse Staffing from 1 September 2009. It is alleged that he included these details dishonestly.

15. On 28 August 2016, the Registrant submitted his CV to Bryn Melyn Care in respect of a post as a Psychologist in Therapeutic Residential Care. His CV, under ‘Professional Experience’, included posts at Action for Children, Pulse Heathcare Ltd, and Cygnet Hospital. It is alleged that he included these details dishonestly.

16. On 6 October 2016, Dr LW, Head of Clinical Services at Bryn Melyn Care conducted a Skype interview with the Registrant. During this interview, it came to her attention that the Registrant had not worked at these organisations.

17. On 7 October 2016, Dr LW advised the HCPC of her concerns.


Decision on Facts

18. On behalf of the HCPC, the Panel heard live evidence from Dr LW, Head of Clinical Services at Bryn Melyn Care, a residential care company; GS, Payroll Team Leader at Pulse Healthcare Ltd; and SD, Human Resources and Training Coordinator at Cygnet Health Care. The Panel also had witness statements from SP, former Training and Recruitment Administrator at Cygnet Health Care; JC, Administrative Officer at Action for Children; and JB, a Case Manager at the HCPC.

19. The Panel was also provided with a documentary exhibits bundle, which included Dr LW’s referral to the HCPC; a copy of the CV submitted by the Registrant; relevant emails and screenshots from Cygnet Hospital, Pulse Healthcare and Action for Children; a copy of the Job Description for Psychologist at Bryn Melyn Care; and a copy of the Registrant’s application to the HCP, including University transcripts and certificates.

20. The Panel was also provided with the Registrant’s response to the allegations and a testimonial.

21. The Panel noted the Registrant’s request that his response to the allegations as submitted to the Investigating Committee be available to The Panel. HCPC confirmed that all the material submitted by the Registrant was before the Panel.

22. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In respect of the disputed facts, the Panel understood that the burden of proving each individual fact is on the HCPC and that the HCPC will only be able to prove a particular fact if it satisfies the required standard of proof: namely the civil standard, whereby it is more likely than not that the alleged incident occurred.

23. The Panel considered the evidence of GS. He had given evidence to the Panel regarding his efforts to check on the electronic database system at Pulse for records of the Registrant. The Panel found him to be a credible witness in the sense that he was cooperative and tried to answer to the best of his ability. He was clearly familiar with the system and what he had done in respect of obtaining the screenshots of his results. There were elements of information where he was not able to assist the Panel, because they were outside his remit as an employee within the payroll system of Pulse.

24. The Panel considered the evidence of SD. She gave evidence regarding her checking of the employment records at Cygnet. The Panel found that SD was a credible witness who was able to answer questions to the best of her ability. She was candid about the limitations of what she had been able to check, given that the online database system had been introduced in 2014 and it was a paper based filling system before that time. She was unable to assist with what protocols would have been in place or whether or not any paper personnel file relating to the Registrant would be destroyed or archived.

25. The Panel considered the evidence of Dr LW who gave evidence regarding the Registrant’s application to Bryn Melyn Care. The Panel found Dr LW to be a credible and cooperative witness. While her recollection of events relied upon the details of her witness statement there was consistency between her oral evidence to the Panel and the documentary evidence within the bundle.

26. The Registrant did not attend, but the Panel did not hold his non attendance against him at the fact finding stage. It had regard to his responses to the allegation submitted to the HCPC.

Particular 1(a) – Found Not Proved

1. On or around 30 July 2009 you made application to be placed on the HPC register which incorrectly stated that you were employed by:

a. Pulse Staffing, from 1 September 2009

27. The Panel finds Particular 1(a) not proved.

28. The Panel noted that GS had been able to locate the Registrant’s name on the electronic database system and had been able to confirm that the Registrant had registered with the agency on 26 February 2008, although there was no payroll information to indicate that the Registrant had undertaken any work. GS also confirmed that he had seen within another tab on the system, which he had not taken a screenshot of, that attempts had been made to contact the Registrant to offer work.

29. The Panel had regard to the copy of the Registrant’s HPC application, and in particular that part which included details of Pulse Staffing. In the section entitled ‘Career history’ the Registrant had written ‘Pulse Staffing’ in answer to the request for employer’s name; and ‘Associate Clinical Psychologist’ in the request for the job title. He had provided a contact name for a supervisor and given a start date of 1 September 2009. In relation to the space for listing main duties and responsibilities, the Registrant had completed the following details:

‘Clinical Psychologist – Youth Offending Team Barking and Dagenham NHS

Unable to take up this offer due to family illness in Canada’

30. The Panel was of the view that it was significant that the Registrant had included in his application to HPC, the details of being unable to take up the post on the same sheet as the rest of the details for Pulse. These written details indicated that the Registrant had not been employed by Pulse.

31. In all the circumstances, the Panel was not satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had incorrectly stated that he was employed by Pulse from 1 September 2009.

Particular 1(b) – Found Not Proved

1. On or around 30 July 2009 you made application to be placed on the HPC register which incorrectly stated that you were employed by:

b. Cygnet Healthcare, from 1 October 2008

32. The Panel finds Particular 1(b) not proved.

33. DS told the Panel that the esmart electronic database system had been implemented in 2014, and that a paper based filing system had been in place before that. Although she had not been able to locate a paper file in relation to the Registrant, she also confirmed that she did not know what protocols had been in place for retaining or archiving old files. She did confirm that they were not transferred onto the esmart system. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence to the effect that the Registrant had not been offered a post at Cygnet Healthcare.

34. The Panel had regard to the copy of the Registrant’s HPC application, and in particular that part which included details of Cygnet Healthcare. In the section entitled ‘Career history’ the Registrant had written ‘Cygnet Healthcare’ in answer to the request for employer’s name; and ‘Specialist Clinical Psychologist’ in answer to the request for his job title. He had provided a contact name for a supervisor and given a start date of 1 October 2010. In relation to the space for listing main duties and responsibilities, the Registrant had completed the following details:

‘Clinical Psychologist Youth Forensic Adult Male Rehabilitation - Had to relinquish this post due to family illness in Canada’

35. The Panel was of the view that it was significant that the Registrant had included these details of having to relinquish the post on the same sheet as the rest of the details for Cygnet. The Panel considered that the written details could be read in two ways: that the Registrant had started employment but had had to relinquish the post, or that he had been offered the post but had had to relinquish the post. The Panel did not consider that the HCPC had discharged the burden of proving that the written details should be read as having started employment but having to have relinquished it.

36. In all the circumstances, the Panel was not satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had incorrectly stated that he was employed by Cygnet Healthcare from 1 October 2008.

Particular 2(a) – Found Proved

Whilst registered with the HCPC as a Psychologist you:

2. On or around 28 August 2016 sent your CV to Bryn Melyn Care, in an application for a vacancy, which incorrectly stated that your professional experience included:

a. Action for Children in 2013

37. The Panel finds Particular 2(a) proved.

38. The Panel had regard to the statement of JC, Human Resources Administrative Officer at Action for Children since May 2016. She described that she had searched for records of the Registrant on the electronic database system and had been unable to find a record for him, although she did indicate that if the Registrant had worked for Action for Children via an agency, she would not be able to locate any records as Action for Children would not hold those records. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s submissions stated that the job offer for Action for Children was initially a three month locum position through an agency which was later withdrawn. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence to the effect that the Registrant had not been offered a post at Action for Children.

39. The Panel had regard to the copy of the Registrant’s CV which had been provided to Dr LW. It noted that the following details had been provided under the title ‘Professional Experience’:

2013 – Action for Children Lead Psychologist, Programme Supervisor Fareham, Hampshire.

40. Dr LW told the Panel that in the interview, when asked about his duties at Action for Children, the Registrant, criticised the role and talked about it negatively. He explained that they offered him a role in a different location to that which he had been led to believe when he was offered the post. When she asked him if he had ever worked there he responded that he had not.

41. The Panel considered that whilst the Registrant may have been offered the post, he accepted that he had not ever worked there. From this, the Panel concluded that he did not have professional experience at Action for Children as stated on his CV.

42. In light of all the evidence, the Panel was satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had incorrectly stated that his professional experience included working for Action for Children.

Particular 2(b) – Found Proved

2. On or around 28 August 2016 sent your CV to Bryn Melyn Care, in an application for a vacancy, which incorrectly stated that your professional experience included:

b. Pulse, in 2009

43. The Panel finds Particular 2(b) proved.

44. The Panel had regard to the evidence of GS to the effect that while the Registrant had registered with Pulse Staffing Agency, he had not undertaken any employment through them. This was confirmed in the Registrant’s HPC application form as described in Particular 1(a) above.

45. The Panel had regard to the copy of the Registrant’s CV which had been provided to Dr LW. It noted that the following details had been provided under the title ‘Professional Experience’:

2009 – Pulse Clinical Psychologist

46. Dr LW told the Panel that in the interview, when asked about his work as a Clinical Psychologist for Pulse, his answers were unclear and it transpired that he had not undertaken any Clinical Psychologist positions with Pulse. When she asked him directly if he had held these positions he said ‘no’.

47. The Panel considered that whilst the Registrant may have been registered with Pulse agency, he accepted that he had not undertaken any employment through them. From this, the Panel concluded that he did not have the professional experience he had stated on his CV, through Pulse.

48. In light of all the evidence, the Panel was satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had incorrectly stated that his professional experience included through the Pulse Agency.

Particular 2(c) – Found Proved

2. On or around 28 August 2016 sent your CV to Bryn Melyn Care, in an application for a vacancy, which incorrectly stated that your professional experience included:

c. Cygnet Hospital in 2008

49. The Panel finds Particular 2(c) proved.

50. The Panel had regard to the copy of the Registrant’s CV which had been provided to Dr LW. It noted that the following details had been provided under the title ‘Professional Experience’:

2008 - Cygnet Hospitable Specialist Clinical Psychologists, Adolescents, Adult Males

51. Dr LW told the Panel that in the interview, when asked about his duties at Cygnet Hospital, the Registrant started talking about his personal difficulties in respect of the post. When she asked him to clarify whether he had worked there, he said that he had never started his position there. When Dr LW told him that his CV was misleading, the Registrant referred her to the addendum on his CV to explain these positions.

52. The Panel had regard to the addendum within the Registrant’s CV, which included the following:

‘2008 Cygnet Hospital My start date was delayed. During that time I [had personal difficulties], therefore I was obliged to return to Canada.’

53. The Panel considered the addendum in itself was inaccurate. In the Panel’s view it implied that the start date had been delayed, as opposed to any job offer not being taken up. The Panel accepted the evidence of Dr LW that the Registrant had told her that he had not started his position there. From this, the Panel concluded that he did not have professional experience of working at Cygnet Hospital as stated on his CV.

54. In light of all the evidence, the Panel was satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had incorrectly stated that his professional experience included Cygnet Hospital.

Particular 3 – Found Proved (in part)

3. The matters described in paragraphs 1 – 2 were dishonest.

55. The Panel finds Particular 3 proved in respect of Particulars 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c).

56. The Panel considered that at the time of completing and submitting his CV to Dr LW the Registrant knew that he had not worked at, so had not gained professional experience at, any of Action for Children, Pulse, or Cygnet Hospital. The Registrant’s addendum to CV referenced one of the organisations, Cygnet Hospital, with a delayed start date, but it did not make clear that the he had never worked there. The addendum made no reference to Action for Children or Pulse.

57. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s representations. In them he pointed out that on his CV the jobs in question had a start date but no leave date, plus they had no list of job duties. His position was that this was inconsistent with the rest of his CV so he was expecting questions in respect of this which would have given him a chance to “fully explain the situations”.

58. The Panel considered these submissions and whether this was a case of a Registrant simply trying to improve his chances of obtaining an interview, given that he did not have recent professional experience in the field of children and young people. The Panel noted that the certificates and references before it indicated that the Registrant had extensive such experience up to 2001, but none subsequently. However, it considered that the Registrant had not volunteered at the outset of the interview with Dr LW that he had not worked at the three posts. When asked about his clinical duties in these roles, the Registrant was unclear in his responses. The stage at which he admitted that he had not worked at them was when asked outright by Dr LW.

59. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s good character, including the reference written on his behalf by a professional colleague aware of the allegation against the Registrant. The author of the reference had known the Registrant for 25 years, and attested to the high regard in which he was held in the profession and that the Registrant was regarded as an ethical and honest professional. The Panel considered that this indicated that the Registrant would be well aware of the importance of honesty and transparency in respect of a professional’s experience in a CV when applying for a post, particularly recent experience.

60. The Panel was satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant knew that he did not have professional experience within the organisations of Action for Children, Pulse or Cygnet Hospital. It considered that the Registrant had included them so that his CV would not appear to have recent gaps in his employment history. The Panel considered that by the objective standards of ordinary and decent people, this would be considered as dishonest.


Decision on Grounds

61. The Panel next considered whether the matters found proved as set out above, amounted to misconduct and if so, whether by reason thereof, the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired.

62. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that any findings of misconduct and impairment were matters for the independent judgement of the Panel. The Panel was aware that consideration of impairment only arises in the event that the Panel judges that the facts found proved do amount to misconduct and that what has to be determined is current impairment, that is looking forward from today.

63. The Panel considered whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct and concluded that they did.

64. In light of the evidence of Dr LW, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant did not volunteer the correct position about his recent employment history until Dr LW asked him about it directly. Further, it considered that the information included in the professional experience part of the Registrant’s CV related to three posts in which he did not have professional experience.

65. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s failures had breached standard 9 of the 2016 HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics as follows:

9. Be honest and trustworthy

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

9.2  You must be honest about your experience, qualifications and skills.

66. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s failures had breached standard 2.2 of the Standards of proficiency for Practitioner Psychologists:

Registrant practitioner psychologists must:

2.2 understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council.

67. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrants actions fell far below the Standards of conduct and behaviour expected of a Practitioner Psychologist. In the Panel’s judgement they were serious enough to amount to misconduct.


Decision on Impairment

68. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Impairment and in particular the two elements of impairment, namely the ‘personal component’ and the ‘public component’.

69. The Panel first considered the ‘personal component’.

70. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant appeared to minimise his actions. Although he had admitted to Dr LW that he had not worked at the three posts, when she pointed out to him her view that his CV was misleading, he replied: ‘I am sorry you feel that way’. In respect of the addendum to his CV, it appeared to the Panel that the Registrant had some understanding of the requirement to explain the position regarding Cygnet Hospital, but he had not provided an adequate explanation within the CV to clarify that he had never worked for Cygnet. In addition he had omitted explanations in his CV in respect of the other two posts to clarify that he had never worked for Action for Children or Pulse.

71. In his representations to the HCPC the Registrant stated that he disagreed with the concerns that had been raised regarding his CV and did not accept that it may be misleading. The Panel was of the view that for someone with the Registrant’s professional experience he appeared to demonstrate little insight into his actions, either at the time or in his subsequent representations to the HCPC.

72. In all the circumstances, the Panel was unable to rule out that there remained a risk of repetition that the Registrant may in future include incorrect information within a CV and that he may do so dishonestly. It therefore concluded that in respect of the personal component, his fitness to practise is currently impaired.

73. The Panel went on to consider the ‘public component’.

74. In light of the Panel’s finding of misconduct in submitting a CV which dishonestly includes incorrect information, the Panel concluded that public confidence in the reputation of the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in this particular case. Similarly, the Panel concluded that professional standards would be undermined if it did not make a finding of impairment.

75. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the ‘public component’.


Decision on Sanction

76. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct, the Panel next went on to consider whether it was impaired to a degree which required action to be taken on his registration by way of the imposition of a sanction.

77. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and exercised its independent judgement. The Panel had regard to the Indicative Sanctions Policy (the Policy) and considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel was aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the wider public interest, which includes upholding standards within the profession, together with maintaining public confidence in the profession and its regulatory process.

78. The Panel first identified what it considered to be the principal aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.

79. Aggravating factors:

• The Registrant‘s actions were pre-meditated in the sense that he took the decision to prepare a CV containing incorrect information about his professional experience and then provided that CV in support of his application for a post;

• The incorrect information provided in the Registrant’s CV about his professional experience spanned three professional appointments; and

• The Registrant had limited insight into his actions.

80. Mitigating factors:

• The Registrant had a lengthy and distinguished professional career at a senior level, and there were no previous regulatory concerns;

• The reference provided to the Panel attested positively to the Registrant’s usual honesty and integrity in his practice;

• The dishonesty was not sustained in that the Registrant made admissions in interview when directly asked about his professional experience and made admissions in his representations to the HCPC; and

• The Registrant had engaged with the HCPC through correspondence and providing representations.

81. The Panel considered the sanctions available, beginning with the least restrictive. The Panel did not consider the options of taking no further action, mediation, or the sanction of a Caution Order to be appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances of this case. In view of the limited insight demonstrated by the Registrant, in minimising his actions and disagreeing with the concerns raised about his CV, none of these options would address the consequent risk of repetition which the Panel had previously identified nor would they reflect the seriousness of the case. 

82. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel was satisfied that this case did not raise any clinical concerns which may be appropriately addressed through conditions. The Panel was of the view that it was not possible to formulate workable or practicable conditions which would address the Registrant’s dishonesty. Further, the Panel considered that the case was too serious for a Conditions of Practice Order.

83. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order and concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case. Although the Panel had found that the Registrant’s insight was limited at this time, it considered that a Suspension Order would provide the opportunity to the Registrant to reflect on his misconduct and to demonstrate that he had developed an appropriate level of insight. The Panel also considered that such an Order is required to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold professional standards.

84. The Panel considered that the length of the Order should be for 12 months. This is with a view to the Registrant demonstrating to the next Panel that he has reflected on his actions and has developed sufficient insight into them. The Panel also considered that public confidence in the profession would be damaged if any lesser period were imposed.

85. The Panel acknowledged that the Policy lists dishonesty as the type of case in which a Striking Off Order may be appropriate. However, in the context of the Registrant’s lengthy and distinguished career, the Panel was of the view that a Striking Off Order for this one incident of dishonesty would be unduly punitive. The dishonesty, while serious, was not at the most serious end of the scale, and the Registrant had not sustained the dishonesty on being challenged at interview. In light of this and given that the Panel has found that the Registrant may be able to develop sufficient insight over the course of a Suspension Order, the Panel is of the view that a Striking Off Order would be disproportionate at this time.

86. This Panel does not seek to fetter the discretion of a future reviewing Panel, but it considers that such a Panel may be assisted by any information which evidences a developing level of insight, including a reflective piece which:

a. demonstrates the Registrant’s learning from his actions;

b. demonstrates his understanding of the impact his dishonesty may have on public confidence in the profession;

c. considers how he would avoid a repetition of his dishonesty in the future.

87. The Panel acknowledged that such an Order may have an adverse impact upon the Registrant. However, the Panel determined that the interests of protecting the public and maintaining public confidence in the profession outweigh the interests of the Registrant.

Order

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Dr Anthony Linford from the Register for a period of 12 months from the date on which this Order comes into effect.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Dr Anthony Linford

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
15/10/2018 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended