Mrs Debra Husband
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 Social Worker, and during the course of your employment at Redcar
and Cleveland Borough Council:
a) recorded in your electronic diary that you had a physiotherapy appointment
on 6 December 2017, when this was not the case;
b) informed your line manager on 6 December 2017 that you had left work to
attend a physiotherapy appointment, when this was not the case
2) The matters set out in paragraph 1 were dishonest
3) Your actions in 1-2 constitute misconduct
4) By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.
Service and Proceeding in Absence:
1.The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was properly served with the Notice of Hearing, dated 1 February 2019, according to the HCPC’s procedural Rules. The letter of notice of the hearing was sent with at least 28 days’ notice and contained the date, time and place of the hearing, as well as the nature of the hearing.
2. The Panel noted Mr Bridge’s submission that the two HCPC witnesses were ready in attendance at the HCPC premises and were willing to give evidence. It accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and took into account the HCPC’s Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence of the Registrant. The Panel determined to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. It was clear from the Registrant’s email dated 30 March 2019 that the Registrant had knowledge of the Hearing and that she has taken the decision voluntarily not to be present at her Hearing. She did not apply for an adjournment and the Panel considered it highly unlikely that she would attend even if the matter was to be adjourned. In the Panel’s opinion, the public interest would be represented proportionately and expeditiously by proceeding in the absence of the Registrant. As a further fact, the Registrant’s union representative from UNISON had emailed the HCPC on 30 January 2019 indicating that the Registrant would not be attending the hearing and that UNISON’s policy was not to attend a hearing in the absence of any Registrant, but that they would continue to support this Registrant with any written representations if she wished to submit them.
3. Mr Bridges submitted that certain parts of the written evidence provided by the HCPC was inadmissible as being unfair and prejudicial to the Registrant. They related to i) Paragraph 22 of the written witness statement of the HCPC witness, DJ, which described anonymous hearsay evidence and ii) Paragraph 15 x) of the written witness statement of the HCPC witness, JP, which described matters not alleged against the Registrant. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It determined that in both cases the prejudice to the Registrant was greater than any potential importance of the evidence, which was peripheral, if not irrelevant, to the Particulars of Allegation.
4. The Registrant was employed as a social worker with Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (the Council) from 23 July 2011. On 1 January 2016, she commenced a role as a Grade G Social Worker within the Council’s Mental Health (Adult Services) team (the team). As part of this role, the Registrant worked with service users who required support in terms of their mental health. This included covering the duty telephone line regularly and undertaking Care Act 2014 assessments. These would require home visits to service users, completing reviews and setting up and reviewing packages of care for those service users. In addition, the Registrant was required to support Approved Mental Health Professionals as a back up worker by accompanying them to urgent mental health assessments. Any unauthorised absence of a member of the team could potentially imperil the continuity of the services provided within the team, and thereby negatively affect care to the service users. It also potentially impacted adversely on the care offered by the other allied health care professionals involved in the service users’ care. The Registrant’s line manager was DJ, a social worker and team manager with the team. The Registrant had informed the Council in October 2017 that she was leaving for other employment elsewhere.
5. DJ had become concerned about the Registrant’s appearance during the afternoon of 6 December 2017. As a result of seeing the Registrant dressed much more casually than usual when she attended the team’s office in the morning of 6 December 2017, DJ checked with the Registrant’s Outlook calendar for that day after the Registrant left just after lunchtime. DJ found an appointment for physiotherapy scheduled for the Registrant from 3.30pm to 5pm. The Registrant was in the process of attending Council funded physiotherapy sessions after an injury. In DJ’s opinion, physiotherapy appointments were scheduled for 30 minutes and not an hour and a half. DJ felt something was amiss about the Registrant’s behaviour that day. Therefore, DJ rang the Registrant at 4.05pm on 6 December 2017 to ask where she was and asking why the time did not match her recorded booked physiotherapy session from her diary. The Registrant confirmed that she was not at her physiotherapy appointment at that time, and said that she was driving to the appointment.
6. To alleviate her worries about this set of circumstances, DJ had contacted the Council’s Human Resources department (HR) on 6 December 2017, asking for documentation concerning the Registrant’s physiotherapy sessions and noted from the documentation she was sent by HR that the Registrant had no physiotherapy appointment booked for the afternoon of 6 December 2017, and that another funded physiotherapy appointment had been booked for the following week for the Registrant.
7. DJ was reluctant to raise the issue with HR at that time and, so, the next day, on 7 December 2017, she asked the Registrant where she had undergone her physiotherapy appointment on 6 December and the Registrant replied that it had been at The Heart, where the Council’s funded physiotherapists operate from. DJ then asked the Registrant why it was that HR had no record of the Registrant's appointment at that time on 6 December 2017 and the Registrant stated that she had decided to have the sessions privately as she liked the physiotherapist and that her allocated funded physiotherapy sessions had ended. On 7 December 2017, on checking with the company used by the Council for physiotherapy for staff (SANO), DJ discovered that there was no record of an appointment for the Registrant on 6 December 2017 at The Heart. On 8 December 2017, DJ emailed the Registrant and informed her that SANO had no details of her appointment on 6 December 2017. The Registrant emailed a response dated 8 December 2017, in which she stated she had contacted SANO herself and they did not have a record that she had undergone a physiotherapy session on 6 December 2017. The Registrant stated that she paid privately by cash and assumed she got the wrong company and went to another person. She offered to work to make up any time lost as it was a personal matter not funded by the Council. This made DJ suspicious as the Council’s policy was clear that time was not required to be made up for Council funded treatment of this type; such treatment was legitimately permitted to be taken from the employee’s working hours, even if for private appointments. On 8 December 2017 DJ put the matter into the hands of the Council’s HR department. On 11 December 2017, the Registrant went off sick and on 11 December 2017 she also made a formal complaint against DJ that DJ had bullied her. That complaint was never followed up by the Registrant. She remained off sick until 20 December 2017, when she left the Council, having secured other employment elsewhere.
8. On 13 December 2017 JP, a social worker and a West 1 Locality (Adult Services) Council team manager was appointed by VW, the Assistant Director of Social Care at the Council to investigate the case. JP was provided with a statement dated 11 December 2017 from DJ, outlining the facts and her concerns, as well as the Registrant’s job description, screenshots of the Registrant’s work diary from 4-8 December 2017, a more detailed archived copy of the Registrant’s work diary for October, November and December 2017 and copy email correspondence between DJ and the Registrant. JP interviewed DJ on 2 January 2018. Despite GH, the Council’s senior HR adviser, inviting the Registrant to attend an interview on 20 December 2017, her union representative declined on her behalf; therefore, JP did not interview the Registrant. JP also had a copy of the Registrant’s discharge from physiotherapy with the SANO company dated 12 December 2017, notes of telephone conversations between herself and SANO and another company used by the Council, Active Physio, both dated 3 January 2018 who JP had contacted, in case the Registrant had been confused between the two companies. JP also had a copy of the Council’s Lone Working Policy. On 17 January 2018, JP submitted her completed Investigation Report to the Council’s HR department.
9. It is not known if the Council held a disciplinary hearing.
10. The Panel heard from JP and DJ, as stated, both being social workers and team managers, JP being the investigating officer into this case and DJ being the Registrant’s line manager. The Panel also read the witness statements and exhibits of both HCPC witnesses. In addition, the Panel heard a submission from Mr Bridges and it also read the Registrant’s Defence statement received by the HCPC on 25 February 2019. It also took into account the Registrant’s email to DJ dated 8 December 2017.
11. In reaching its conclusion on the facts the Panel took into account that the HCPC has to prove the case on the balance of probabilities. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It made the following conclusions about the HCPC witnesses:
12. JP: The Panel found this witness to be credible and open; for example, she admitted when she was unable to recall matters asked of her. The Panel also took into account that her input to the case was reflected in the fact that, as she herself recognised, she had not had the opportunity to interview the Registrant.
13. DJ: The Panel found this witness to be credible and balanced. She knew the Registrant well and the Panel consider her to be a confident and assertive person.
The Panel determined the following in relation to Particulars of Allegation:
14. The Panel was satisfied that the fact of the entry into the Registrant’s diary of the physiotherapy appointment on 6 December 2017 was shown in the bundle of evidence by a screenshot of her electronic diary.
15. The Panel also accepted the evidence of DJ that, on 6 December 2017, she had contacted the relevant person in the Council’s HR department and had been informed that no physiotherapy appointment had been booked for the Registrant at The Heart on 6 December 2017. In addition, the Panel accepted the evidence of DJ that, on 7 December 2017, she contacted the relevant person at SANO and was told that they had no record of a physiotherapy appointment on 6 December 2017 for the Registrant. Although this was hearsay evidence because the persons to whom DJ spoke were not HCPC witnesses in this case, the Panel concluded that DJ was extremely clear about these conversations and the Panel accepted her oral evidence in the hearing that her recall of them was vivid. JP subsequently had a conversation with SANO and the other physiotherapy establishment at the Heart building to check if the Registrant had gone elsewhere, and this was evidenced by a later telephone note in the exhibits bundle. The Panel also accepted the evidence that showed the Registrant had not yet, on 6 December 2017, been discharged from her physiotherapy treatment (she was eventually discharged from it after having not attended a further scheduled appointment on 11 December 2017).
16. The Panel also accepted the evidence of DJ that she had spoken to the Registrant in person on 7 December 2017 and during that conversation, the Registrant confirmed that she had been at The Heart the day before (on 6 December 2017) having her physiotherapy appointment. When challenged that the Council’s HR department had no record of her attendance on that day, the Registrant indicated that her Council funded sessions had come to an end, but she had continued them privately because she liked the physiotherapist and because her Council funded sessions had expired. On 8 December 2017, by email to DJ, the Registrant further stated that she had checked with SANO and discovered she had not had an appointment with them after all, and went on to state that she assumed she had gone to another person, paid in cash for a private appointment and had got the wrong company.
17. The Panel concluded that that the wording of this Particular of Allegation did not encapsulate, at this stage, the need for the Panel to find a reason behind why the record was incorrect; the Panel determined that this Particular of Allegation related to the bare facts of the matter, rather than any motivation on the part of any person, in particular the Registrant.
18. The Panel accepted the evidence of DJ that the Registrant had told her, when DJ telephoned the Registrant on 6 December 2017, that she was on her way to her physiotherapy appointment and was running late. The Panel also accepted DJ’s evidence that the Registrant told her, on 7 December 2017 that she had attended at The Heart on 6 December 2017 and, when challenged by DJ about that, told her that she was paying privately for her physiotherapy by then, as she liked her physiotherapist and her Council funded session had expired. The Panel was able to conclude that no physiotherapy appointment for 6 December 2017 existed and what the Registrant had said to her line manager was not the case.
19. The Panel accepted the evidence of DJ that she had contacted the relevant person at the Council’s HR department on 6 December 2017 and at SANO on 7 December 2017 and had been informed by both departments that no physiotherapy appointment had been booked for the Registrant at The Heart on 6 December 2017. Although this was hearsay evidence because the persons to whom DJ spoke were not HCPC witnesses in this case, the Panel concluded that DJ was extremely clear about these conversations and the Panel accepted her oral evidence in the hearing that her recall of it was vivid. Furthermore, JP’s conversation with SANO and another physiotherapy establishment she contacted in case the Registrant had gone elsewhere, was evidenced by a later telephone note in the exhibits bundle. The Panel also accepted the diary evidence that showed the Registrant had not yet, on 6 December 2017, been discharged from her physiotherapy treatment (she was eventually discharged from it after not having attended as scheduled on 11 December 2017).
20. The Panel concluded that the wording of this Particular of Allegation did not encapsulate the need for the Panel to find a reason behind why the record was incorrect; the Panel determined that this Particular of Allegation related to the bare facts of the matter, rather than any motivation on the part of any person, in particular the Registrant.
2): as to 1a) and 1b), considered separately - Proved.
21. The Panel found DJ’s evidence to be cogent and consistent in respect of her reporting of the conversation she had with the Registrant on 6 December 2017 that the Registrant had told her she was on her way to the physiotherapy appointment. The Panel also accepted that this had not been the case, as evidenced by DJ’s enquiry on 6 December 2017 with the Council’s HR department and with her enquiry to SANO on 7 December 2017.
22. Contrasted to that evidence, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s various accounts were inconsistent and not credible. They ranged from telling DJ on the telephone on 6 December 2017 that she was on her way to her physiotherapy appointment at 4.05pm, when, factually, she was not; telling DJ in person on 7 December 2017 that she had attended The Heart for her physiotherapy appointment, when factually, she had not done so; telling DJ that her Council funded sessions had expired, when they had not; telling DJ by email on 8 December 2017 that she had got the wrong company and gone to another person, which was a different and modified version to her accounts to DJ on 6 and 7 December 2017; and her written submission dated as having been received by the HCPC’s solicitors, Kingsley Napley, on 23 February 2019 and by the HCPC on 25 February 2019, in which she stated that she had forgotten to book the appointment with SANO; unintentional, a genuine mistake and an oversight on her part, and when she attended for the appointment, found she was not booked in. She denied dishonesty and misconduct in the submission. The Panel concluded that this was another version of her actions, put forward by her over a year after the events and with the benefit of having seen the full account given by DJ in her witness statement. The Panel concluded at various times that the Registrant tailored her accounts to fit what DJ was telling her.
23. For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the actual state of the Registrant’s evidence in this case on 6 December 2017 and since then, to present day, as to the facts of the case, was that she had, alternatively, attended the 6 December 2017 physiotherapy appointment, or that she had not attended the 6 December 2017 physiotherapy appointment, and that she had lied on a number of occasions to DJ, her line manager, about that. As a result, on the facts as found proved in 1a) and 1b), the Registrant, not being at work and not being at the physiotherapy appointment for the stated period of time on 6 December 2017, had gained that time away from her Council-contracted duties.
24. On the evidence, and with respect to the various explanations given by the Registrant to DJ and to this Panel in her written statement, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s various stated beliefs about whether she had attended the physiotherapy appointment on 6 December 2017, or if not, why she had not done so, were not genuinely held and were unreasonable.
25. The Panel then applied the standards of ordinary decent people. In the Panel’s judgement, the inconsistent attempts by the Registrant to explain her physiotherapy situation on that afternoon of 6 December 2017 would lead any ordinary and decent person to conclude that the Registrant was dishonest in this matter because she lied to her line manager with the purpose of obtaining time off work. The Panel considered that an ordinary decent person would have asked their line manager for that time off.
26. Therefore for these reasons, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s actions as set out in Particulars of Allegation 1a) and 1b) were dishonest.
27. The Panel took into account the submission of Mr Bridges and the written submission of the Registrant. It accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and exercised its own judgement in arriving at its conclusions on Misconduct. In the Panel’s judgement, the facts found proved amounted to conduct that fell far short of the standards expected of a professional. The Registrant lied on several occasions to her line manager and breached the trust of her employer in gaining time off from her employment. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was a serious departure from those standards, as the public would be concerned that her dishonesty in the form of this deception undermined the confidence that it is entitled to expect from a professional person.
28. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct breached the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics in relation to Paragraph 9.1, as follows:
Be honest and trustworthy
Personal and professional behaviour
You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the facts found proved amount to misconduct.
29. The Panel took into account the submission of Mr Bridges and the written submission of the Registrant. It accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and exercised its own judgement in arriving at its conclusions on Impairment. The Panel also took into account the HCPC’s Practice Note ‘Finding That Fitness to Practise is Impaired.’
30. The Panel concluded that the evidence before it from the Registrant, especially in the February 2019 written statement from her, demonstrates that she has, in the past, and today, no insight into her misconduct. Her current position is that she made an error and did not book a physiotherapy appointment. The Registrant lied to her line manager and against the full case as set to her in the bundle for this hearing, she now denies that she ever had the physiotherapy appointment. Her written submission of February 2019 to the HCPC can only show to the Panel that this Registrant has not taken responsibility for her dishonest misconduct; the impact on her employer and on her line manager, DJ.
31. In her evidence DJ was extremely complimentary about the Registrant’s professionalism and working practices, having worked with her for a number of years. DJ clearly felt let down by the Registrant’s dishonest behaviour, as evidenced in her witness statement and in her oral evidence in this hearing.
32. There has been no evidence before the Panel to inform it as to whether the risk of repetition has been removed or diminished. The information that the Registrant has provided is that she has subsequently worked for a Local Authority in the Children’s Safeguarding Team, and is currently not working as a Social Worker.
33. In addition, the Panel has no evidence before it of any remediation by the Registrant to remedy the dishonest misconduct. Although it can be difficult to remediate dishonesty, it is not impossible to do so, especially in cases such as this. In the Panel’s judgement, this is an isolated event that took place on one day, which the Registrant continues to deny in her written submission. Her career before this matter was without criticism or disciplinary action and she had worked for the Council for approximately seven years and, as stated, had attracted compliments about her practice from DJ, her line manager. The time off the Registrant obtained was minimal in terms of the period of time. For these reasons, the Panel considered this case to reflect dishonesty at the lower end of the spectrum.
34. The Panel concluded that public confidence in the integrity and reputation of the profession of social work, involving as it does, the care of vulnerable people, would be seriously undermined if the Panel were to make a positive finding that the Registrant is fit to practise today. The Panel considered that the public would expect the professional standards of the profession to be upheld in this case of dishonest misconduct. For these reasons, the Panel determined that the only way the public interest can be properly upheld is by a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.
35. Therefore, the Panel has determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal component and public interest grounds.
36. The Panel heard a submission from Mr Bridges and took into account the Registrant’s written submission of February 2019, as well as the written and oral evidence in the hearing. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and it paid regard to the HCPC’s Indicative Sanctions Policy. In reaching its decision, the Panel exercise the principle of proportionality.
The Panel noted the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, as follows:
• The Registrant deliberately lied to her line manager;
• By her dishonest misconduct, the Registrant breached the trust of her employer, in the form of her line manager, DJ;
• There is no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant understands the full impact of her dishonest acts on her work colleagues, her employer and on her profession;
• There is no evidence before the Panel of any expressions of regret or remorse.
• The Panel has concluded that the dishonesty in this case was at the lowest end of the scale of dishonesty;
• There was no apparent financial gain;
• The Registrant’s misconduct was an isolated event;
• The Registrant had a long career as a social worker without any previous referral to the HCPC and had been employed for approximately seven years by the Council without any dishonesty or complaint made against her until this matter arose;
• The Registrant has been working for a Local Authority in their Children’s Safeguarding Team since these events until October 2018 without any dishonesty or referral made against her to the HCPC;
• The Registrant’s professionalism was highly praised by her line manager, DJ, in her oral evidence before this Panel, despite the dishonest acts undertaken by the Registrant;
• Her lack of full insight is not irremediable;
• There was no impact on any service user as a result of the Registrant’s misconduct.
37. The Panel first considered taking no action and mediation and rejected these outcomes, as they do not provide a sufficient measure of sanction to reflect the findings in this case and uphold the wider public interest.
38. The Panel next considered imposing a Caution Order, noting that the maximum period is for five years and that the suggested benchmark in the HCPC’s Indicative Sanctions Policy is a three year period with the option to go higher or lower in duration. The Panel considered that a Caution Order of the higher duration can often be more of a deterrent to a Registrant and to the profession generally against future misconduct than sanctions of shorter duration that are higher up the scale of sanctions available.
39. In exercising the principle of proportionality in this case, in the Panel’s judgement, the mitigating factors referred to above outweigh the aggravating factors. In particular, the Panel determined, in its judgement, that the Registrant’s dishonesty is at the lowest level of the range of dishonesty. Furthermore, and significantly, the Registrant has been working in a Children’s Safeguarding Team within a Local Authority since these events until October 2018 without any referral to the HCPC against her. An important factor in this respect was that she had commenced as an agency worker and progressed to a permanent position with the same Local Authority. Thus, the Panel determined that this has acted to demonstrate to the Panel two important factors: that she has already earned the trust of her new employer so that she was offered a permanent post and that, therefore, a large portion of the required reduction or complete removal of a risk of repetition of the misconduct has been addressed. The Panel also concluded from the evidence before it from her line manager that it was likely that this isolated act on the Registrant’s part was out of character in a long and unblemished career until December 2017.
40. In the Panel’s judgement, this case is unusual and unique. The Registrant has a finding of dishonesty against her, has not been present at the hearing and has not displayed full insight or any apparent regret or remorse. Balanced against that, however, are the many mitigating factors, which include that the dishonesty is at the lowest end of the scale, that the Registrant held a good working record as a social worker for many years until these events, that her working record in an allied capacity involving vulnerable service users after these events has been without complaint or allegation of dishonesty to her regulator and that she was held in professional high esteem by her then-line manager, DJ.
41. In the Panel’s judgement, the written and oral comments of DJ relating to the Registrant as a social worker were of such weight and pertinence that they demonstrated with some force to the Panel that the Registrant would be of more value to the benefit of the community at large whilst being retained within the profession, rather than out of it. This was made clear to the Panel from DJ’s evidence. The Panel reminded itself that DJ was the Registrant’s line manager at the time of these events, but yet she expressed her high regard of the Registrant notwithstanding that she had been the instigator of the Registrant’s dishonest misconduct, and therefore a crucial witness to the investigation of it. In her oral evidence before the Panel, DJ stated that the Registrant was “absolutely fantastic” to work with, that she and the Registrant had a “positive relationship and a very strong professional bond” and that until 6 December 2017, there were no issues with the Registrant in any respect. DJ had already stated in her witness statement dated 11 January 2018 that she felt “very sad” about the Registrant’s behaviour, that they had a “good working relationship”, that she felt that the Registrant had “let herself down”, that she would have given the Registrant the afternoon off if the Registrant had asked her and if the Registrant had told her about taking the time off after the event on, say, 7 December 2017, DJ would have dealt with the matter “within supervision and under management guidance”. DJ concluded her witness statement by stating that she felt “saddened that so many years working for the Council concluded the way it did.”
42. The Panel noted that DJ would have been likely to use the supervision route had the Registrant approached her on 7 December 2017. It was the Registrant’s omission to do so that led to DJ, after an agonised period of reflection, to activate the matter with the Council’s HR department. Notwithstanding this, DJ gave her written and oral evidence that included the matters referred to about her valid and high opinion of her relationship at work with the Registrant. The Panel found these endorsements and sentiments expressed by DJ to be a powerful pointer to this being a case where the professional concerned, the Registrant, would be of more value to the community and the public at large as a social worker within the profession rather than outside it.
43. For these reasons, the Panel concluded that a fully informed member of the public would be reassured that the sanction of a Caution Order would be the most proportionate and appropriate sanction in this unique case. Therefore, on the grounds of upholding public confidence in the profession and maintaining the standards of the profession, namely, the wider public interest, the Panel determined that the proportionate and appropriate sanction is that of a Caution Order.
44. The Panel also determined that a three year Caution Order would be the most proportionate duration for the Caution Order. In the Panel’s judgement, a fully informed member of the public would be reassured that this would adequately mark the low level of dishonesty and the other mitigating factors when balanced against the identified aggravating factors and would mark the wider public interest.
45. The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate, this not being a case involving allegations of competence deficiencies, or behaviour that can be addressed appropriately by conditions. The Panel also considered the sanction of a Suspension Order and determined that, in this unusual and unique case, where the level of dishonesty was so low, where the Registrant had a long and unblemished career, where this was an isolated event and where the comments of the Registrant’s then-line manager pointed to the need to keep the Registrant within, rather than outside the profession, a Suspension Order would be disproportionate.
Order: That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mrs Debra Husband with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of three years from the date this order comes into effect.
A Final Hearing was held in London, 1-3 April 2019. The Panel imposed a Caution Order.
History of Hearings for Mrs Debra Husband
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|01/04/2019||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Caution|