Mr Thomas Kelly

Profession: Paramedic

Registration Number: PA42090

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 24/06/2019 End: 17:00 26/06/2019

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Caution

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 by the Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee on 24 June 2019):


While registered with the Health and Care Professions Council as a Paramedic:
1) On or around 16 August 2017, you took photographic images of an assessment paper for the DTAG Level 3 Certificate in Emergency Response Ambulance Driving; and
2) On 20 August 2017, you posted these photographic images on Facebook which allowed Paramedic colleagues access to the assessment papers.
3) The matters set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 constitute misconduct.
4) By reason of your misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary Matters:

Service

1. Mr Thomas Kelly (“the Registrant”) is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic. The Registrant was present at the hearing and was represented by Ms Richardson of Blackfords Solicitors. The Panel was satisfied that notice of the hearing was sent to the Registrant and there had been good service of the notice of hearing.

Amendment of the Allegation

2. Ms Hollos applied to amend the particulars of the Allegation. She sought to insert the word “you” after the dates in both particulars 1 and 2. Ms Richardson indicated that the Registrant had no objection to the proposed amendments.

3. The Panel decided to allow these amendments as they were minor and the Panel could not identify any discernible prejudice to the Registrant.

Background:

4. The Registrant is employed by London Ambulance Service (“LAS”). On 16 August 2017, the Registrant sat a driving law theory assessment exam as part of his level 3 certificate in Emergency Response Ambulance Driving. He did not attain the required pass mark. He re-took the test on 21 August 2017. He did not attain the required pass mark.

5. HCPC asserts that the Registrant took photographs of his completed exam paper and posted these images on Facebook on or around 20 August 2017. This gave other students access to the photographs. The exam on 21 August 2017 was identical to the exam the Registrant sat on 16 August 2017. The HCPC asserts that the allegations amount to misconduct. It is asserted that the Registrant’s conduct fell below the standard expected of a Paramedic.

6. HCPC produced a bundle of documents in advance of the hearing. The bundle included detailed witness statements of MC, Head of Driving Standards at the London Ambulance Service at the material time, and ST, a Training Officer at the London Ambulance Service. MC and ST were the only witnesses on behalf of the HCPC.

7. The Registrant provided a bundle of documents which comprised character references and a reflective statement. He gave evidence at the hearing.


Admissions:

8. Ms Richardson on behalf of the Registrant, stated that the Registrant accepted the facts set out in particulars 1 and 2 of the Allegation.

Decision on Facts:

9. The Panel considered all the evidence presented, together with the submissions made by Ms Hollos on behalf of the HCPC and Ms Richardson on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and bore in mind that it was for the HCPC to prove its case and to do so on the balance of probabilities.

10. The Panel found ST and MC to be open, honest and credible. They provided their evidence in a balanced and measured way.

11. ST explained that he was an instructor on the level 3 course. He was first involved in the course on 21 August 2017 due to the absence of a colleague. He explained that the Registrant had got one question on his re-sit examination wrong. The Registrant told ST that he had been informed, when he received feedback on his original exam, that his answer to the question was correct. The Registrant proceeded to show ST similar photographs on his phone of the original exam paper which the Registrant had taken on 16 August 2017. ST asked the Registrant to delete the photographs, which he duly did. The Registrant emailed ST to confirm that the photographs of the exam paper had been deleted. Another participant on the course, Person A, informed ST that photographs of the exam paper had been posted to a closed group on Facebook. ST raised this with the Registrant. The Registrant acknowledged that he had posted photographs of the exam paper on Facebook. He arranged for the photographs to be removed. He emailed ST confirming that the photographs had been removed.

12. ST explained that the actions of the Registrant had potentially serious consequences. His actions could have facilitated students that did not have the requisite knowledge to pass the exam. This endangered the safety of the general public. Such individuals could potentially have driven ambulances for LAS without having the requisite knowledge of the relevant law.

13. MC was head of driving standards at LAS in 2017. He was involved in an investigation undertaken by LAS into the Registrant’s actions. During the course of the investigation, the Registrant admitted to MC that he had taken photographs of the exam and had posted them on Facebook. MC described the Registrant as having been honest and fully engaged during the process. He stated that the Registrant had fully and frankly outlined what he had done. MC explained that the risk of someone who is not proficient passing the exam is that they would not have a detailed understanding of the law surrounding road traffic exemptions, with the potential to commit offences such as dangerous driving. As a result of the Registrant’s actions, the exam paper was withdrawn from the national ambulance service. LAS received a level 2 warning from the awarding body FutureQuals. LAS was temporarily suspended from issuing such certificates resulting in 70 staff being delayed in receiving their certificates.

14. The Panel found the Registrant to be open and honest in the evidence that he gave.

15. The Registrant candidly accepted that he had taken photographs of the original exam paper and had posted them on Facebook. He explained that he had posted them on a closed user group of the students involved in his course. He had posted the exam in response to a request from a fellow student. He acknowledged that he should not have done this and accepted that there was a significant risk of wider dissemination of the exam paper. He acknowledged that, as a result of his actions, there was a risk of individuals that did not have the requisite knowledge and proficiency passing the exam and driving ambulances. He accepted that his actions were wrong. He described his actions at the time as having been stupid. He expressed regret at his actions. He acknowledged that members of the public would be horrified at his actions. He recognised that Paramedics should be held to appropriate standards and that he had fallen below the standards expected on this occasion. He provided a reflective statement during the LAS investigation and a further reflective statement during the present proceedings. He accepted that his actions have impacted adversely on LAS, his colleagues and the profession. He apologised for his actions and expressed regret about his errors of judgment which gave rise to a serious risk to the public. The Registrant stated that he would never make the same mistake again.

16. The Panel considered each particular of the Allegation in turn.

Particular 1

On or around 16 August 2017, you took photographic images of an assessment paper for the DTAG Level 3 Certificate in Emergency Response Ambulance Driving;

17. In relation to particular 1 of the Allegation, the Panel finds that on or around 16 August 2017, the Registrant took photographic images of an assessment driving paper for DTAG Level 3 Certificate in Emergency Response Driving. The Panel accepted the evidence of MC and ST. ST explained that the Registrant had shown him photographs of the exam paper on his phone. MC explained that, during the course of an interview, the Registrant admitted taking photographs of the exam. The evidence of ST and MC is also consistent with emails that were available to the Panel. The Panel also placed weight on the admission made by the Registrant.

Particular 2

On 20 August 2017, you posted these photographic images on Facebook which allowed Paramedic colleagues access to the assessment papers.

18. In relation to particular 2 of the Allegation, the Panel finds that on or around 20 August 2017, the Registrant posted the photographic images on Facebook which allowed paramedic colleagues to access the assessment papers. The Panel accepted the evidence of MC and ST. The Registrant told both witnesses that he had taken the photographs and had uploaded them to Facebook. This is also consistent with an email that the Registrant sent to ST on 21 August 2017. In the email, the Registrant stated: “I’m confirming that the photos discussed have been removed from Facebook”. ST explained that another participant on the course had informed him that the exam was visible on Facebook. The Panel also placed weight on the admission made by the Registrant. The Registrant explained in his evidence that he had posted the exam on Facebook and had done so in response to a request made by another student.

Decision on Grounds:

19. Having found the facts set out above to be proved, the Panel then considered whether they amounted to misconduct. The Panel focussed on whether the matters set out in particulars 1 and 2 of the Allegation constitute misconduct. In so doing the Panel took into account the submissions made by Ms Hollos for the HCPC, the submissions of Ms Richardson for the Registrant and the advice of the Legal Assessor.

20. The Panel was mindful that the question of misconduct is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.

21. The Panel took into account that misconduct was defined in Roylance v General Medical Council (no 2) [2001] 1 AC 311 as:
“…a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”.

22. The Panel considered the HCPC’s “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics” (the “Standards”), particularly Standard 9.1 which provides that:

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

23. The Panel bore in mind that not every breach of the Standards and not every falling short of what would be proper in the circumstances will constitute misconduct; the breach must be serious.

24. The Panel found the Registrant’s actions to be in breach of paragraph 9.1 of the Standards. The Panel found that taking photographs of the exam paper and then posting them on Facebook is serious and can be properly described as misconduct. The actions of the Registrant gave students that had failed the original exam an unfair advantage in the second exam. There was a risk of the exam being disseminated more widely. The Registrant’s actions had the potential to jeopardise the safety of members of the public. It gave rise to a risk of individuals driving ambulances when they did not have the required knowledge of relevant laws.

25. The Panel considered that, on the facts found proved, the Registrant breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely that Paramedics are expected to act with professionalism and integrity at all times. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct demonstrated behaviour that lacked professional integrity and that fellow registrants would consider it to be unacceptable. The Registrant himself accepted this. In his reflective statement, he observed that:

“If the situation was reversed, I would be horrified that a paramedic had acted in this manner”.

26. The Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant's behaviour had the clear potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. Characterising the Registrant’s actions as anything other than misconduct would fail to uphold proper professional standards and would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory function of the HCPC.

27. The Panel finds that the actions of the Registrant fell far below the standards to be expected of a member of the Paramedic profession and constituted misconduct.

Decision on Impairment:

28. The Panel has taken into account the submissions made by Ms Hollos for the HCPC and Ms Richardson for the Registrant. The Panel has also considered the HCPTS Practice Note “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired”. It also heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

29. The Panel is required to determine whether fitness to practise is impaired as at today’s date. The Panel’s task is not to punish the Registrant for past acts. However, the Panel is required to take account of past acts and omissions in order to make an informed assessment as to whether the Registrant’s present fitness to practise is currently impaired.

30. The Panel has taken into account:
• the ‘personal’ component: the Registrant’s own practice as a Paramedic, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation; and
• the ‘public’ component: the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

31. In respect of the personal component, the Panel applied the following test formulated by Dame Janet Smith in her Fifth Shipman Report and applied by the High Court in Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), paragraph 76), to the extent relevant to the facts of the case:

“Do our findings of fact in respect of the [Registrant’s] misconduct, deficient professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that she/he:
a) has in the past acted and/or is liable to act in the future so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
b) has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical profession into disrepute; and/or
c) has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession; and/or
d) has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future?”

32. With regard to sub-paragraph (d) above, there was no evidence offered in this case that the Registrant had acted acted dishonestly.

33. In relation to sub-paragraph (a), the Registrant has not acted directly to put patients at unwarranted risk of harm in terms of his clinical practise. However, his actions did have the potential to put service users at risk as individuals without the requisite knowledge and skills could have passed the exam and, as a result, have driven patients in ambulances.

34. In relation to sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) above, the Panel judged that by photographing an exam paper and then posting it on Facebook, the Registrant had brought the profession into disrepute. Paramedics occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times to be professional. The Registrant’s conduct fell well below the standards expected of members of the Paramedic profession. His actions gave rise to a risk that individuals without the required knowledge and proficiency could have passed the relevant exam.

35. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that, at the date of the incident in 2017, the Registrant’s fitness to practice was impaired as a result of the misconduct.

36. The Registrant has engaged fully in the investigation undertaken by LAS and the current regulatory proceedings. In his evidence to the Panel, he acknowledged that he should not have photographed the exam paper and should not have uploaded it to Facebook. He accepted that his actions had fallen short of the standards to be expected of a paramedic. He provided a reflective statement at the time of the investigation undertaken by the London Ambulance Service. He has provided a further reflective statement in the context of these proceedings. The Panel accepts that the Registrant has demonstrated significant insight into his actions. He has reflected on the damage that his actions caused to LAS and the paramedic profession. The Panel considers that the regret and remorse shown by the Registrant is genuine. The Panel notes that the incident took place nearly two years ago. There is no evidence to suggest that there have been any similar incidents. The Panel concludes that this was an isolated incident of extremely poor judgment and that there is a low risk of repetition. Accordingly, notwithstanding the serious nature of the Allegation that has been found to be proved, the Panel does not consider that, on the basis of the personal component, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

37. The Panel went on to consider the public component and whether this was the type of case that required a finding of impairment on public interest grounds in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct.

38. In addressing this component of impairment, the Panel had regard to the observations of Silber J in Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581”
“Any approach to the issue of whether…fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of…the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour...” [paragraph 62]

39. Paramedics occupy a position of privilege and trust and are expected at all times to be professional. Patients must be able to trust them and, to justify that trust, they must act with integrity. The Panel considers that maintaining professionalism and proper standards of conduct are fundamental requirements of the profession and that the public would be concerned to learn of the Registrant’s misconduct.

40. Notwithstanding the evidence of insight and remorse, the Panel concludes that the public would rightly be highly concerned about the incident. The Panel considers that, although an isolated incident, the misconduct is of a serious nature. It included posting photographs of an exam paper on Facebook. The Registrant posted the exam in response to a request from an individual that had already failed the exam. He acknowledged that his actions gave the individuals taking the test an unfair advantage. His actions gave rise to a risk of individuals passing the exam, and driving ambulances, when they did not have the required knowledge of the relevant law. This risked public safety. There was also a significant risk of wider dissemination of the test. The Registrant’s actions resulted in individuals having to retake the exam. It also resulted in the exam paper being withdrawn nationally.

41. The Panel was satisfied that the actions of the Registrant brought the reputation of the profession into disrepute and that he has breached one of the fundamental tenets of his profession which is to make sure that his conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in him and his profession. (HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics – paragraph 9.1). In his reflective statement, the Registrant himself acknowledged that “If the situation was reversed, I would be horrified that a paramedic had acted in this manner”.

42. The Panel was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public, who was aware of all the background to this case, would have their confidence in the profession undermined if a finding of impairment was not made. This is because of the serious nature of the errors of judgment and the harm caused to the reputation of the profession by the actions of the Registrant. The Panel is satisfied that a finding of impairment is necessary in order to send a clear message that uploading exam papers to social media, which risks the safety of the public and road users in particular, is completely unacceptable.

43. For all the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the grounds of public protection and in the public interest.

Decision on Sanction:

44. The HCPC and the Registrant were provided with a copy of the Panel’s decision in relation to impairment and afforded time to reflect upon it before addressing the Panel in relation to the issue of sanction.

45. Ms Hollos, on behalf of the HCPC, addressed the Panel on the HCPC’s Indicative Sanctions Policy (“ISP”). The decision on what sanction, if any, to impose was a matter for the judgment of the Panel. The HCPC did not invite the Panel to impose any particular sanction. Ms Hollos addressed the Panel on relevant mitigating and aggravating factors in the present case. In terms of mitigation, the Registrant has made admissions in relation to the particulars of the Allegation, has demonstrated a degree of insight, and the matter is an isolated incident of poor judgment. However, in terms of aggravating factors, Ms Hollos highlighted the risk of significant harm that arose as a result of the Registrant’s actions and the significant impact on LAS including the withdrawal of its ability to award certificates and the fact that 70 staff members were delayed in receiving their driving certificates.

46. Ms Richardson, on behalf of the Registrant, also drew the Panel’s attention to the ISP. She reminded the Panel of the need to ensure that any sanction imposed was proportionate. She submitted that a Caution Order would be appropriate in the present case. It would highlight the serious nature of the Registrant’s conduct while ensuring that he could continue to work within the profession. She acknowledged that it may be difficult to formulate Conditions of Practice. However, she submitted it would not be impossible. For example, the Registrant could be required to undertake a course in social media usage and/ or road safety. She submitted that a Suspension Order, or a Striking Off Order, would be disproportionate. The Registrant has made a valuable and positive contribution as a Paramedic. She highlighted the positive testimonials and references from his manager and colleagues. She submitted that there has been an isolated incident of poor judgment on the part of the Registrant. She highlighted the level of insight that has been shown by the Registrant and submitted that the risk of repetition was low. She also noted that the Registrant has now worked as a Paramedic for almost two years since the incident without any further issues arising.

47. The Panel received, and accepted, advice from the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor addressed the Panel on the ISP and advised the Panel that in deciding what, if any, sanction to impose, the Panel should ensure that any sanction is proportionate and strikes a proper balance between the protection of the public and the rights of the Registrant.

48. The Panel has taken into account the ISP. However, the Panel has reached its own independent decision on the appropriate sanction based on the individual facts of the present case. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest.

49. The Panel proceeds on the basis that it is not automatic that any sanction will be imposed merely because a finding of misconduct has been made. The purpose of any sanction is not to be punitive. The primary objective is public safety. However, other public interest objectives have a role to play. These include:
i. the deterrent effect to other registrants;
ii. the reputation of the profession concerned; and
iii. public confidence in the regulatory process.

50. The Panel first considered whether there were any aggravating and/or mitigating factors to be taken into account when deciding the appropriate sanction.

51. In terms of mitigating facts, the Panel considers that:
• the Registrant has fully engaged with the LAS investigation and the HCPC proceedings;
• he accepted that his actions were wrong at the time of the LAS investigation;
• he made admissions to all the factual particulars at the outset of the hearing and was open and honest when giving evidence to the Panel;
• he has shown significant insight and remorse as evidenced by his reflective statements;
• the present case concerns an isolated incident of poor judgment;
• there is no previous disciplinary record;
• he has continued to work as a Paramedic without any similar incidents occurring for a period of nearly two years;
• the incident is out of character;
• he has the benefit of good current testimonials from colleagues and his current LAS manager, who know of the incident and still support him and value him as member of the ambulance service; and
• there is a low risk of repetition.

52. The Panel considers that aggravating factors in this case are:
• the risk of significant harm to the public, and road users in particular, that arose as a result of the Registrant’s actions; and
• the significant impact on LAS including the temporary withdrawal of its ability to award certificates and the fact that 70 staff members were delayed in receiving their driving certificates.

53. In order to ensure that it imposed a sanction that was no more restrictive than was necessary to protect the public and the public interest, the Panel considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of severity.

54. The Panel considered whether any order was required. The Panel took into account paragraph 8 of the ISP which states:
“Even if a Panel has determined that fitness to practise is impaired, it is not obliged to impose a sanction. This is likely to be an exceptional outcome but, for example, may be appropriate in cases where a finding of impairment has been reached on the wider public interest grounds identified above but where the registrant has insight, has already taken remedial action and there is no risk of repetition.”

55. The Panel was of the view that taking no further action would not be appropriate in the present case. The Panel acknowledges that the Registrant has developed significant insight. However, the Panel does not consider that this is an exceptional case which justifies no action being taken. While the Panel considers that the risk of repetition is low, the Panel has not concluded that there is no risk of repetition. Furthermore, the Panel considers that taking no further action would not satisfy the public interest and address the need to maintain confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and uphold proper standards in light of the serious nature of the Allegation that has been proved.

56. For the reasons set out in the previous paragraph, the Panel considers that Mediation is also not appropriate.

57. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order is appropriate. The Panel noted paragraph 28 of the ISP, which states:
“A caution order is an appropriate sanction for cases, where the lapse is isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature, there is a low risk of recurrence, the registrant has shown insight and taken appropriate remedial action. A caution order should also be considered in cases where the nature of the allegation means that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed but where the registrant has shown insight, the conduct concerned is out of character, the risk of repetition is low and thus suspension from practice would be disproportionate. A caution order is unlikely to be appropriate in cases where the registrant lacks insight.”

58. The Panel considers that the Registrant’s errors of judgment represent an isolated incident. While it is not minor in nature, the Panel considers that there is a low risk of recurrence. Moreover, the Registrant has demonstrated significant insight into his actions and their impact on LAS, the profession and the public. He has continued to work as a Paramedic for a period of nearly two years and no similar incidents have occurred. The Panel has available to it testimonials and references from the Registrant’s LAS manager and colleagues which indicate that the Registrant has provided useful service to the Public and that the incident at the heart of the present proceedings was out of character for the Registrant.

59. The Panel determined that, in this case, the public interest can be met by the imposition of a Caution Order as a sanction. The Panel is of the view that the effect of the Caution Order will be a salutary reminder to the Registrant of the need to uphold professional standards at all times. Moreover, it will protect the public interest by declaring that the Registrant’s conduct is not acceptable. In addition, it will send a message to other registrants of the importance of conducting themselves appropriately at all times. The Panel considers that a member of the public who was fully informed of the above considerations, and the particular circumstances of this case, would consider it proportionate for a Caution Order to be imposed in this case. It satisfies the public interest requirement for the Registrant’s failings to be marked with a proportionate sanction.

60. The Panel tested its conclusion by considering more draconian sanctions.

61. Because there are no concerns about the Registrant’s practice, the Panel’s view is that it would be inappropriate to restrict his practice. The testimonial evidence shows that, when at work, the Registrant has been and remains a good and competent Paramedic who has the respect of his colleagues. Moreover, he has developed significant insight in relation to the underlying events. Accordingly, Conditions of Practice would not be appropriate.

62. The Panel considers that a Suspension Order would be disproportionate. That is due to the fact the errors of judgment on the part of the Registrant relate to an isolated incident, the Registrant has demonstrated significant insight, there have been no further concerns in relation to the Registrant for a period of approximately two years following the incident and the risk of repetition is low. The Panel considers that the public interest would not be served by depriving the public of the services of the Registrant.

63. The Panel then considered the appropriate length of the Caution Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 29 of the ISP which states that:
“At the Panel’s discretion, a caution order may be imposed for any period between one and five years. In order to ensure that a fair and consistent approach is adopted, Panels should regard a period of three years as the ‘benchmark’ for a caution order. However, as Panels must consider sanctions in ascending order, the starting point for a caution is one year and a Panel should only impose a caution for a longer period if the facts of the case make it appropriate to do so.”

64. Having carefully considered the nature of the misconduct and the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Panel decided that a Caution Order for a period of 18 months is appropriate and proportionate, and sufficient for public confidence to be upheld and to provide a deterrent effect on the profession at large. The Panel notes that the ISP indicates that a period of 3 years may be considered as a relevant benchmark. In light of the isolated nature of the errors of judgment, the level of insight which the Registrant has developed, the remorse that he has shown, and the fact that he has continued to work for a period of nearly two years since the incident without any further incidents arising, the Panel considers that a period of three years would be excessive. In balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors outlined above the Panel considers that a Caution Order for a period of 18 months is proportionate. It adequately and properly marks the gravity of the matter while recognising that the Registrant has displayed significant insight into his failings. The Panel considers that this period meets the public interest in this case including having a deterrent effect on other registrants.

65. Therefore, the Panel imposes a Caution Order for 18 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Order

That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Thomas Kelly with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of eighteen months from the date this order comes into effect.

Notes

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 Article 29(10) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn. 

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Thomas Kelly

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
24/06/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Caution