Mr James B Hurst

Profession: Hearing aid dispenser

Registration Number: HAD02156

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 09/12/2019 End: 17:00 09/12/2019

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service, 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

Whilst registered with the Health and Care Professions Council, as a Hearing Aid Dispenser, you:

1. On 23 January 2019 accepted a simple caution from Kent Police for four offences of
Voyeurism.

2. By reason of your caution your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary matters:
Additional material
1. At the start of the hearing, Mr Walker provided the Panel with an additional bundle of documents.
2. The Panel labelled the documents provided as R1. R1 contained the following documents:
i. ‘HCPC Reflection’;
ii. reference from HR Manager, AF, at bloom hearing specialists, the Registrant’s current employer;
iii. reference from Regional Manager, JS, at bloom hearing specialists; and
iv. the decision of the Conduct and Competence Panel in respect of an Interim Order application made on 24 May 2019.
3. The Panel carefully read the contents of R1 prior to the hearing commencing.

Background
4. The Registrant is, and was at the relevant times, registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (‘HCPC’) as a Hearing Aid Dispenser.
5. On 5 December 2018, the Registrant submitted a self-referral to the HCPC stating that he was currently under investigation by Kent Police.
6. On 29 November 2018, the Registrant attended Maidstone Police station of his own accord and confessed to the Police that he had placed his mobile telephone, which had contained within it a recording facility, in his bathroom. He admitted to recording his fiancé and her family members using the bathroom.
7. On 23 January 2019 the Registrant accepted a simple caution from Kent Police for Voyeurism which stated the following:
‘Voyeurism - recording a private act - SOA 2003 - On or About 01/06/2018 at MAIDSTONE in the county of KENT recorded another person doing a private act with the intention that you would, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of that other person doing the act, knowing that the other person did not consent to your recording the act with that intention
Voyeurism - recording a private act - SOA 2003 - On or About 01/06/2018 at MAIDSTONE in the county of KENT recorded another person doing a private act with the intention that you would, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of that other person doing the act, knowing that the other person did not consent to your recording the act with that intention
Voyeurism - recording a private act - SOA 2003 - On or About 01/06/2018 at MAIDSTONE in the county of KENT recorded another person doing a private act with the intention that you would, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of that other person doing the act, knowing that the other person did not consent to your recording the act with that intention
Voyeurism - recording a private act - SOA 2003 - On or About 01/06/2018 at MAIDSTONE in the county of KENT recorded another person doing a private act with the intention that you would, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of that other person doing the act, knowing that the other person did not consent to your recording the act with that intention.’
8. The HCPC did not call any witnesses to give evidence in the proceedings. The HCPC relied upon the documents contained within its bundle. The Registrant elected not to give evidence before the Panel.
9. The Registrant made admissions to Particular 1 but denied Particular 2.

Submissions
10. Mr Lloyd, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted the following:
i. the Registrant is impaired on both the personal and public components;
ii. in respect of the personal component:
a) the Registrant accepted a caution, from Kent police, in respect of four acts of voyeurism;
b) each of the four acts, contained within the Caution, stated that the Registrant’s conduct was sexually motivated. The Registrant now claims, in his responses to the Panel’s questions, that his motivation was not sexually motivated and was an act of revenge against those who he claims were financially dependant on him;
c) the Registrant did not give evidence to the Panel and he did not make himself available for cross-examination;
d) he has not sought to appeal or challenge the Caution with the Police;
e) the Registrant has demonstrated a lack of insight into his actions. He claims that he referred himself to the Police and the HCPC of his own motion, when in fact the victims of the Voyuerism were going to go to the Police and it was his employer who suggested that he refer himself to the HCPC;
f) the Registrant claims he was being blackmailed by his, then, Fiancé’s family. However, he has not provided any evidence of this and it is not contained within the statement to the Police, nor was a complaint pursued with the Police in this regard;
g) he has failed to demonstrate an understanding of the gravity of the offences he has committed;
h) in respect of remorse, the Registrant’s remorse is limited;
i) the Registrant did not confess of his own free will. He was found out and the victims were going to the Police, so the Registrant’s actions were an attempt to “get-ahead” of any complaint.
iii. in respect of the public component:
a) public confidence in the regulator and the regulatory process would be undermined if a finding were not made in this case;
b) the Registrant’s actions were serious, sustained and sexually motivated; and
c) there was a significant degree of harm caused to the victims in this case, a deprivation of dignity and a breach of trust.
11. Mr Walker made the following submissions on behalf of the Registrant:
i. In respect of the personal component:
a) he was fully accepting of his conduct and the Caution;
b) he had self-referred to the Police, his employer at the time, and the HCPC;
c) he had engaged fully with the Police, his employers and the HCPC;
d) he had demonstrated immediate and ongoing insight for his actions, including how his actions could undermine trust and confidence in the profession;
e) he had shown significant remorse for his actions;
f) he had provided two reflective pieces, which the Panel could be assured demonstrated that the conduct was unlikely to be repeated because this was an isolated incident in what is an otherwise unblemished career;
g) his actions had occurred at his home address, and did not concern service users; nor were his actions undertaken in a work environment;
h) the Registrant had provided references from his previous and current employer to demonstrate what a ‘valued member of the team’ he was;
i) he had voluntarily attended counselling and had provided a report from her in respect of his attendance at five sessions with her;
j) he had explored the issues with the counsellor and they had determined that his actions had been borne out of anger, vengeance and resentment rather than sexually motivated behaviour;  and
k) the risk of repetition is low; and
l) the Interim Order panel had determined that the Registrant presented as a low risk of repetition.
ii. In respect of the public component:
a) the Registrant had strayed in very specific circumstances and the victims in this case had not made complaints to the Police themselves;
b) the circumstances were not likely to recur;
c) he has had an exemplary career;
d) he is of previous good character, prior to accepting the Caution; and
e) the public would be satisfied knowing all of the facts of the case, that the Registrant was not impaired and therefore a finding on public protection grounds or public confidence grounds was not made out.
12. Prior to the Panel retiring Mr Walker submitted two further documents for the Panel to consider. The first document was an email from the Registrant’s counsellor which confirmed that the Registrant had attended counselling sessions with her. The Panel labelled this document as R2. The second document which was provided to the Panel was an email from the Registrant’s current employer stating that they were aware of today’s proceedings. The Panel labelled this document as R3.

Decision on Facts and Grounds
Panel’s Approach
13. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities.
14. The Panel had regard to Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 which provides that one of the grounds upon which an Allegation may be made is that a Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of “a conviction or caution”.
15. The Panel also noted the contents of the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Convictions and Caution Allegations’ and in particular that “conviction allegations” include allegations that a registrant’s fitness to practise may be impaired as a consequence of “accepting a caution for an offence from a UK Police force of other law enforcement agency”.
16. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account all of the evidence and information presented to it and contained within the hearing bundles, the submissions made by the parties and the Registrant’s admission in respect of Particular 1.
17. The Panel accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor.

Particular 1 – Found Proved
Whilst registered with the Health and Care Professions Council, as a Hearing Aid Dispenser, you:
1. On 23 January 2019 accepted a simple caution from Kent Police for four offences of Voyeurism.
18. The Panel noted that there was no dispute that the Registrant received and accepted a Simple Caution from Kent police, in respect of four acts of voyeurism, and that Particular 1 was admitted by the Registrant.
19. The Panel accepted the documentary evidence, noting the Caution document contained within the HCPC bundle. The Panel also noted the comments and early admissions made by the Registrant when he attended Maidstone Police station and had regard to his admissions before the Panel at today’s hearing. The Panel was therefore satisfied, to the required standard, that the facts were proved.
20. The Panel next considered the statutory ground. The Panel was satisfied that a caution is one of the statutory grounds pursuant to Article 22 (1) (a) (iii) of the Health Professions Order 2009. 
21. In the Panel’s view, the Caution in this case raised the issue of the Registrant’s fitness to practise. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that a caution as a potential ground of impairment had been established.

Decision on Impairment
22. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his Caution.

Panel Approach
23. The Panel was aware that a finding of impairment is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement.
24. The Panel took into account the relevant HCPTS Practice Notes relating to ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’ and ‘Finding that Fitness to Practise is ‘Impaired’’ and it accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
25. The Panel had careful regard to the submissions of Mr Lloyd, on behalf of the HCPC, and Mr Walker on behalf of the Registrant, on the issue of current impairment.

Panel Decision
26. The Panel took the view that the factual findings in this case raise significant concerns regarding the Registrant’s conduct. The four acts of voyeurism were sexually motivated, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, breaches of trust and also amounted to a serious lack of judgment on the Registrant’s part, over a sustained period of time.
27. The Panel was of the view that there was a high degree of harm caused to the four victims in this case and that the Registrant’s conduct had deprived the victims of their dignity. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct was intentional, deliberate and planned, having removed and placed a mobile telephone in his bathroom to record his victims on numerous occasions.
28. The Panel first considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise from the personal perspective and then went on to consider it from the wider public perspective.
29. The Panel noted that in the case of CHRE v NMC & grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) Mrs Justice Cox stated:
 “when considering whether or not fitness to practise is currently impaired, the level of insight shown by the practitioner is central to a proper determination of that issue.”
30. The Panel also had regard to Silber J’s guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that panels should take account of:
i. whether the conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable;
ii. whether it has been remedied; and
iii. whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.
31. In addressing the personal component of impairment, the Panel asked itself whether the Registrant is liable, now and in the future, to repeat the conduct of the kind that led to his Caution. In reaching its decision the Panel had particular regard to the issues of insight, remediation and considered the Registrant’s unblemished history.
32. The Panel appreciated that demonstrating remediation in this type of case was inherently difficult. The Panel noted that the Registrant had provided two reflective pieces and has voluntarily sought counselling to address his conduct.
33. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had been honest with the Police, his employers and the HCPC.
34. Notwithstanding these factors however, the Panel was very troubled by the Registrant’s conduct and by the disconnect between the Registrant’s admissions to the Police, in respect of his acts being sexually motivated, and his position before the Panel today, in which the Registrant had sought to justify his behaviour, as a need to ‘gain control’ or as an act of revenge or anger.
35. Further, the Panel was not persuaded by the Registrant’s claims of remorse. In particular, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s claims that he felt “shocked and violated” at the blackmail, which the victim’s family allegedly engaged in against him, demonstrated that the Registrant was genuinely sorry for his behaviour or actions. The Panel could not see the parity between these two situations.
36. The Panel was also of the view that the Registrant had engaged in alarming behaviour, which attracted a high degree of culpability and that he had not provided a justifiable explanation, to the Panel, for engaging in such behaviour.
37. With respect to the Registrant’s openness with the Police, his fiancée and the HCPC, the Panel accepted and preferred the HCPC case, which was that the Registrant had only confessed to his fiancé because he suspected she was already aware of his actions. Further, that he only confessed to the Police because he had been told that the victims were going to report matters to the Police and that he only self-reported to the HCPC because he was advised to do so by his employer at the time.
38. Although the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has recognised his wrongdoing, it was not satisfied that he had demonstrated any meaningful insight into the consequences of the poor choices that he made and the impact on the victims or his profession. The Registrant’s acknowledgement of fault lacked depth in terms of why he had acted as he did, what he had learned from the experience and what steps he had taken to ensure that it did not happen again in the future.
39. As a consequence, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had demonstrated only a degree of insight.
40. The Panel noted the findings of the Conduct and Competence Panel Interim Order decision, as referred to by Mr Walker. However, the Panel was of the view that the tests to be applied by each of the respective panels was different and that the determination of the Interim Order Panel, in respect of the finding of the Registrant presenting as ‘low risk’ of repetition, was made in respect of the necessity of an immediate order. The Interim Order Panel was not concerned with making findings of fact, nor could this Panel be satisfied that it was appraised of all of the facts of the case.
41. In considering whether the Registrant has remediated his conduct, the Panel carefully considered his written representations. In the absence of sufficient insight and meaningful reflection the Panel concluded that there was a real risk of repetition. In particular, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s actions caused harm to members of the public, brought the profession into disrepute and had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession.
42. There was only limited evidence before the Panel that the Registrant had fully and appropriately reflected on these issues and therefore the Panel was led to the inevitable conclusion that there is an ongoing risk of repetition.
43. The Panel concluded that for these reasons the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, based on the personal component.
44. In considering the public component the Panel had regard to the important public policy issues, which include the need to maintain confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
45. The Panel also had careful regard to the public component and the critically important public policy issues identified by Silber J in the case of Cohen when he said:
“Any approach to the issue of whether .... fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”
46. In the Panel’s view members of the public would be extremely concerned to learn that a registered Hearing Aid Dispenser had placed a recording device in a bathroom to record people using the bathroom.
47. A significant aspect of the public component is upholding proper standards of behaviour. The Registrant’s conduct fell far below the standards expected of a Hearing Aid Dispenser.
48. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant had breached standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of Performance, Conduct and Ethics which states - ‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.’
49. The Panel concluded that public confidence in the profession and the regulator would be significantly undermined if a finding of fitness to practise was not made, given the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour.
50. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of both the personal component and the wider public interest.
51. At the start of the reconvened hearing, Mr Walker provided the Panel with an additional two-page document, dated 07 December 2019, and titled ‘Self-Reflection’. The Panel labelled this document at R4.

Registrant’s evidence
52. Prior to the parties making submissions on sanction, Mr Walker called the Registrant to give evidence.
53. The Registrant was taken to each of the reflective accounts that he had provided to the Panel. He confirmed that he agreed with the contents of each of the documents, save for the word ‘necessarily’ contained within the fifth paragraph of R4, where the sentence stated ‘I did want to conclude matters as quickly as possible and so although I did not feel that my actions were necessarily sexually motivated, I was prepared to accept the caution on that basis’.
54. The Registrant told the Panel that, since the Caution, he had been provided with an opportunity to reflect on his actions with his counsellor and that he was now able to talk openly and honestly with family and friends about his feelings and situations in his life. This had enabled him to be better equipped to talk openly about things in his life.
55. He also told the Panel that he had removed himself from his fiancé and her family; that he was working for another company in another part of the country and that he had commenced on “a new chapter in his life”.
56. During cross-examination from Mr Lloyd, the Registrant accepted that he did not have to accept the Police Caution, which required him to admit that his conduct was sexually motivated and that he had not sought to challenge the Caution administered. Further, the Registrant agreed that if he had denied that his conduct was sexually motivated, he could have declined the option of a caution and proceeded to a trial on the issue. The Registrant told the Panel that he did attempt to raise this point with the Custody Sergeant, who had administered his caution, and that the Custody Sergeant had informed him that he had to accept sexually motivated conduct in order to accept the Police Caution.
57. In respect of his actions in placing the camera in the bathroom, the Registrant told the Panel that he had placed the camera in the bathroom on four separate occasions in an attempt to “gain control” and that after viewing the footage on three occasions he deleted it. On one of the four recordings he stated that he had watched it twice before deleting the footage. The Registrant also told the Panel that viewing the footage gave him “no thrill, or sexual high” and that “it didn’t give me what I thought”.
58. In response to the Panel’s questions the Registrant accepted that his actions were likely to be considered as revenge, rather than an attempt to take control, although he had not “thought of it like that” and that he “really did not know why I did it”.
59. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had tried to assist it with his answers to its questions. However, the Panel found the Registrant’s evidence to be ambiguous, vague and, at times, gave the impression of being rehearsed.

Submissions
60. Mr Lloyd on behalf of the HCPC made the following submissions:
i. that whilst the Registrant had accepted his Police Caution, he had, before the Panel, sought to dispute the sexual motivation aspect of the Caution;
ii. the Registrant had engaged in conduct which amounted to a breach of trust and that his conduct was significant, sustained and repeated;
iii. the Registrant’s position has not varied since the last hearing;
iv. the victims in this case were exploited, whilst vulnerable in the bathroom and as such they should be considered as vulnerable victims;
v. that the HCPC case remains that sexual motivation was present in this case; and
vi. the Panel should assess the Registrant’s demeanour to determine if it is satisfied with the insight and remorse shown; and
61.  Mr Walker submitted the following on Registrant’s behalf:
i. that he recognised his failings and had been willing to address them through his counselling, which he had sought independently;
ii. the reflective pieces had remained consistent;
iii. the Panel had the benefit of hearing from the Registrant and should find the Registrant clear, credible and reliable;
iv. the Registrant understood the consequences of his actions;
v. he had made early admissions, accepting that he did not make them after the first recording;
vi. the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC when he was not under an obligation to do so, as he had, at the time of self-referral, not accepted the Police Caution;
vii. he had disclosed his conduct to his employer when he did not have to;
viii. the Registrant had accepted, during Panel questions, that he had wanted to get revenge on his victims and this was considered to be persuasive evidence;
ix. he understands the impact of his actions on his victims and has demonstrated remorse for his actions;
x. service users were not involved and the members of the public involved were not vulnerable;
xi. the recordings made were not disseminated;
xii. there were no previous regulatory findings; and
xiii. evidence of good practice was provided to the Panel.

Decision on Sanction
62.  In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the oral evidence and information provided by the Registrant, the submissions made by Mr Lloyd, together with Mr Walker’s submissions. The Panel also referred to the ‘Sanctions Policy’ issued by the HCPC.
63.  The Panel had in mind the fact that the purpose of sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also cognisant of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
64. The Panel had regard to the oral evidence of the Registrant. Notwithstanding the fact that the Registrant was afforded with a period of time to reflect on the Panel’s findings of fact, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant was seeking to ‘go behind’ his caution and the Panel’s findings, by stating that his conduct was not sexually motivated. During his own oral evidence the Registrant stated that he did not gain any “thrill” or “sexual high” from making the first film, yet he persisted in making three further recordings. The Panel remains of the view, that the Registrant’s conduct was sexually motivated and that the Registrant’s evidence regarding his conduct being an attempt to “take control” lacked credibility.
65. The Panel gave the Registrant credit for engaging in the regulatory proceedings and for the fact that he had also made attempts to remediate his conduct by seeking counselling for his actions. However, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s insight into his actions was lacking and consequently there was a risk of repetition.
66.  The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be:
i. the Registrant’s conduct amounted to a breach of trust;
ii. the Registrant had demonstrated only a degree of insight in respect of his conduct;
iii. the Registrant’s victims were in a vulnerable situation at the time that the footage was taken in the bathroom; and
iv. the Registrant’s conduct was planned, repeated and deliberate.
67.  The Panel considered the following mitigating factors:
i. no previous disciplinary record in his career as a Hearing Aid Dispenser;
ii. the Registrant had made admissions, albeit that he had sought to qualify the admissions before the Panel; and
iii. some remorse was shown by the Registrant during his oral evidence.
68. In light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case to take no further action, since this would not protect the public from the risks identified by the Panel, nor would taking no action uphold the public’s confidence in the regulator or the profession.

69. The Panel then considered whether to caution the Registrant. The Panel was of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct in this case. The Panel also had regard to the Sanctions Policy and noted that the Registrant’s conduct was not isolated, limited in nature or relatively minor. Whilst the Registrant had shown some insight, it was not sufficient to address the risk of repetition identified by the Panel. Further, the Panel noted that whilst the Registrant had engaged in some remediation, by engaging with a counsellor, because the Registrant lacked the necessary insight in respect of his conduct, he had been unable to remedy the behaviour. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession, and the HCPC as its regulator, would be undermined if such behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution.

70. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions on the Registrant’s registration. As identified at the impairment stage, the Registrant’s conduct is of a kind that could be remedied. The Panel noted that a conditions of practice order would ordinarily be used to address areas of deficient practice and this is not the concern in respect of the Registrant’s conduct. However, the Panel also noted the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which states that conditions of practice are less likely to be appropriate in cases concerning sexual misconduct. Hearing Aid Dispensers are, ordinarily, required to work autonomously with members of the public and therefore, the Panel could not conceive of any conditions which would be appropriate, relevant, practicable or workable in this case.

71. The Panel next considered whether a Suspension Order would be appropriate. The Panel was of the view that the facts found proved represented a serious breach of the Standards of Conduct expected of a Hearing Aid Dispenser. The Panel also found that the Registrant had not yet demonstrated full insight into his actions. However, he had demonstrated some insight and the Panel were satisfied that his failings were capable of being remediated. Whilst the Panel could not yet be satisfied that the Registrant did not pose any risk to the public, it acknowledged that the Registrant had been practising, without restriction, for almost a year without further concerns being raised. The Panel was of the view therefore that there was a risk of repetition. The Panel considered that a Suspension Order would reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s failings and would send a clear message that such conduct was not acceptable. In light of all the matters highlighted in this case, the Panel considered that this was a suitable case for a period of suspension.

72. The Panel has heard no reasons as to why the Registrant cannot address his failings in the future. The Panel heard some evidence that the Registrant has taken some steps towards remediating his conduct. The Panel believe that the Registrant can remediate and that he is progressing toward full insight and remediation.

73. The Panel therefore considered that to strike the Registrant from the Register, which is a sanction of last resort, would be disproportionate at this stage and that a lesser sanction was therefore appropriate in this case. The Panel is of the view that the Registrant is a practitioner, who is well regarded by his employer, peers and colleagues. Accordingly, the Panel made an Order directing the Registrar to suspend the registration of the Registrant for a period of 12 months.

74. The Panel is of the view that a twelve month period of suspension is appropriate as this would allow the Registrant sufficient time to address his insight fully and that a 12 month suspension would also satisfy the public interest in terms of restoring confidence in the profession.

75. The Panel considered that a reviewing Panel would be assisted by the following:
i. The Registrant’s attendance at a future review hearing.
ii. A detailed reflective piece on the impact of his conduct on his victims and the wider public.
iii. Evidence of his on-going professional development and CPD as a Hearing Aid Dispenser.
iv. Up to date testimonials from any employer, whether in respect of paid or unpaid work.

Order

Order: That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr James B Hurst for a period of 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Notes

The Order will be reviewed before its expiry.

Right of Appeal:
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.
European alert mechanism:
In accordance with Regulation 67 of the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015, the HCPC will inform the competent authorities in all other EEA States that your right to practise has been prohibited.
You may appeal to the County Court against the HCPC’s decision to do so.  Any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you.  This right of appeal is separate from your right to appeal against the decision and order of the Panel.

Interim Order:
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. For the same reasons given in its determination on sanction, the Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate. It concluded that the only proportionate interim order was an Interim Suspension Order for the period of 18 months to cover any appeal period and was necessary for public protection and is otherwise in the public interest. The Panel has made a finding that the Registrant should not practice unrestricted for at least 12 months owing to his conduct. To make no order would be inconsistent with that finding.
This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr James B Hurst

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
09/12/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended
08/11/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Adjourned part heard