Miss Danielle Asnan

Preliminary Matters:

Service

1. At the start of the hearing, the Registrant was neither present nor represented.

2. The Chair invited the Hearings Officer to satisfy the Panel that the HCPTS had served notice of the proceedings on the Registrant in accordance with The Health and Care Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules).

3. The Panel received evidence in the form of a Notice dated 8 November 2019, and a certificate of service dated 8 November 2019 which showed that Notice of the proceedings had been sent by first class post on 8 November 2019 to the address held by the HCPC on the Register of Paramedics. The Panel saw that the notice gave the Registrant notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing.

4. The Panel had regard to Rule 3 of the Rules, which provides that the sending of a Notice under the Rules can be effected by sending it to the Registrant's address as it appears in the Register. It also had regard to Rule 6, which provides that a Registrant is entitled to 28 days’ notice of the hearing, starting on the day the notice is sent.

5. The Panel received the advice of the Legal Assessor, which it accepted.

6. In the light of the evidence above, the Panel was satisfied that the notice of the hearing had been served by post in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

7. Ms Thilagarajan on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

8. She submitted first that the Panel was entitled to proceed in the absence of the Registrant because the Panel had found there had been good service under the Rules.  She submitted secondly that the Panel should exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant because all the evidence indicated that she had disengaged from the HCPC proceedings and voluntarily absented herself.

9. The Panel received the advice of the Legal Assessor, which it followed, and which is incorporated in its determination set out below.

10. Accordingly, the Panel approached the question in two stages. Firstly, it considered whether it was entitled to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. Secondly, it considered whether, in all the circumstances, it should exercise its discretion to do so.

11. The Panel had regard to Order 30 (9) which provides that: (9) Before exercising its powers under paragraph (1), (2), (4), (6), (7) or (8), a Practice Committee shall give the person concerned the opportunity to appear before it and to argue his case in accordance with rules made by the Council ….”

12. The Panel had regard to Rules 3 and 6 of the Rules, referred to above and Rule 11, which provides that "where the health professional is neither present nor represented at a hearing, the committee may nevertheless proceed with the hearing if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the notice of the hearing under Rule 6 (1) on the health professional.”

13. Finally, the Panel had regard to the guidance given to panels by the Court of Appeal in GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 that, in deciding whether reasonable steps had been taken to serve a registrant when Notice had been posted to his registered address, the Panel should bear in mind that a registrant is under an obligation to maintain an up-to-date address on the Regulator’s Register and that the Regulator’s “responsibility is very simple. It is to communicate with the practitioner at the address he has provided; neither more nor less. It is the practitioner’s obligation to ensure that the address is up to date”.

14. In these circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had taken all reasonable steps to serve Notice of the proceedings on the Registrant by posting a Notice to the address held by the HCPC on the appropriate Register and the Registrant had been given a proper opportunity to appear before the Panel.

15. The Panel then considered whether it should exercise its discretion to proceed in the Registrant's absence.

16. The Panel had regard to the guidance given in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” (dated September 2018) and to the decision of the House of Lords in R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 and the further guidance given to panels by the Court of Appeal in GMC v Adeogba (above). It bore in mind that the discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant should be exercised with great care and caution.

17. It looked at the nature and circumstances of the Registrant's absence, and in particular whether her absence was deliberate and voluntary so that it amounted to a waiver of her right to appear. It had regard to the fact that the Registrant had not attended the substantive hearing or the first review hearing.

18. It also considered whether an adjournment was likely to result in the Registrant attending at a later date, the likely length of any such adjournment, and whether there was any indication that the Registrant wished to be represented. The Panel was satisfied that there is no evidence that an adjournment would secure the Registrant’s attendance or that she would wish to be represented at any future hearing.

19. The Panel accepted that a registrant will inevitably suffer prejudice by not being able to present his or her case. Nevertheless, the Panel balanced that against the public interest in allowing the HCPC to fulfil its duty to protect the public. The Panel bore in mind the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in GMC v Adeogba that, “It would run entirely counter to the protection, promotion and maintenance of the health and safety of the public if a practitioner could effectively frustrate the process and challenge a refusal to adjourn when that practitioner had deliberately failed to engage in the process.

20. The Panel also had regard to the direction given to panels by the Court of Appeal (as above) “Where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, however, it is only right that it should proceed.”

21. When assessing the public interest, the Panel had regard to the fact that this hearing is a mandatory review hearing under Article 30 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 and there was an interest in such reviews being dealt with promptly before the substantive order expires on 9 January 2020.

22. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that there was no good reason to delay and it should exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Hearing in Private

23. Ms Thilagarajan submitted that the entire hearing should be held in private because the case related exclusively to the Registrant’s health.

24. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and incorporated into the decision set out below.

25. The Panel had regard to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the ‘Rules’) which states:
“At any hearing

(a) the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing;”

26. Accordingly, the Panel decided to hold the entirety of the hearing in private in order to protect the private life of the Registrant, because the evidence related to the Registrant’s health.  The Panel was satisfied that it would be effectively impossible to identify parts of the hearing that could sensibly be held in public.

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Ms Danielle Asnan for a further period of 8 months on the expiry of the existing Order.

The order imposed today will apply from 9 January 2020.

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 9 September 2020.

History of Hearings for Miss Danielle Asnan