Miss Jessica Ricci

Profession: Occupational therapist

Registration Number: OT74621

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 16/05/2019 End: 17:00 17/05/2019

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service, 405 Kennington Road

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

Whilst registered as an Occupational Therapist with the Health & Care Professions Council and employed by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, you:

1. Recorded on the Locum Time Sheet which you submitted for the week commencing 8 January 2018,  hours on 12 January 2018, when you were absent from work on leave that day.

2. Recorded on the Locum Time Sheet which you submitted for the week commencing 15 January 2018, hours worked on 18 and 19 January 2018, when you were absent from work on leave on those days.

3. On or around the following dates falsified the signature of your supervisor, Colleague A on the Locum Time Sheet:

a) 4 December 2017, for the week commencing 27 November 2017;

b) 11 December 2017, for the week commencing 4 December 2017;

c) 15 December 2017, for the week commencing 11 December 2017;

d) 22 December 2017, for the week commencing 18 December 2017;

e) 5 January 2018, but signed it as 5 November 2018, for the week commencing 01 January 2018;

f) 12 January 2018, for the week commencing 8 January 2018;

g) 19 January 2018, for the week commencing 15 January 2018.

4. The matters described at particulars 1 - 3 were dishonest.

5. The matters described at particulars 1 - 4 constitute misconduct.

Finding

Preliminary Matters:

Service

1. The Panel heard that notice in respect of this hearing was sent by first class post and email to the Registrant’s registered address on 5 March 2019 in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the Conduct and Competence Procedure Rules 2003.

2. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and determined that the notice had been served in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

3. Ms Vignoles, on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. Ms Vignoles referred the Panel to an email dated 14 May 2019 from the Registrant to the HCPC in which the Registrant stated:

“I would like first to apologise for my absence at this hearing…and thank you for the opportunity to provide a written statement.”

4. Ms Vignoles noted that the Registrant’s email went on to make representations and to provide the Panel with information pertinent to the decisions it would be required to make in the course of the hearing. Ms Vignoles invited the Panel to infer from this that the Registrant was content for the hearing to proceed in her absence. In addition, she noted that the Registrant had not sought an adjournment.
                                          
5. Ms Vignoles referred the Panel to the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and submitted that, in light of the Registrant’s email of 14 May 2019, it was appropriate for the Panel to exercise its discretion to proceed on the basis that the Registrant had chosen not to attend the hearing and had waived the right to appear. She submitted that the public interest in the expeditious disposal of the Allegation outweighed any disadvantage to the Registrant in proceeding in her absence.
 
6. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who reminded it of the guidance provided in the cases of R v Jones [2002] UKHL5, Adeogba v the General Medical Council [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and Davies v HCPC [2016] EWHC 1593 (Admin).

7. The Panel recognised that the discretion to proceed in the absence of a Registrant is one which must be exercised with the utmost care and caution and that its decision should be guided by the overarching objective to protect the public.

8. In reaching its decision, the Panel had regard to the nature and circumstances of the Registrant’s behaviour in absenting herself. The Panel noted the contents of the Registrant’s email to the HCPC dated 14 May 2019 as set out above.  The Panel concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself and so waived her right to be present. The Panel balanced the public interest in the timely disposal of the Allegation with any disadvantage to the Registrant should the hearing proceed in her absence. It also noted the inconvenience to the two witnesses, in attendance, if the hearing were not to proceed.

9. The Panel had no reason to believe that, if it were to adjourn the hearing, the Registrant would attend on the next occasion.

10. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concluded that it would be fair  and in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Application to Amend the Allegation

11. At the outset of the hearing, Ms Vignoles applied to amend Particulars 1 and 2 of the Allegation. Ms Vignoles submitted that the proposed amendments would clarify the allegations against the Registrant and would better reflect the evidence in the case.

12. The Panel noted that the Registrant had been informed by letter dated 23 January 2019 of the Council’s intention to seek the amendments. No objection from the Registrant had been received.

13. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

14. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendments do not change the substance or seriousness of the allegation. It was also satisfied that the Registrant had been notified of the proposed amendments by letter dated 23 January 2019, and had made no objection. The Panel concluded that the proposed amendments would clarify the allegations against the Registrant, would more accurately reflect the evidence and would not prejudice her. For all these reasons, the Panel allowed the application.

Background:

15. The Registrant entered the Register as an Occupational Therapist on 5 January 2017. At the times in issue she was employed by the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) as a Locum Occupational Therapist. As a locum, she would record the time that she worked on a timesheet provided by her agency. The timesheets recorded the dates and duration of the time worked, setting out the start, finish and break times, and it included a declaration, to be signed by the locum member of staff, that the information contained on it was correct. The timesheet would then be signed by an authorised individual, such as a supervisor, and submitted to the administration office at the Trust where it would be verified and processed.

16. A discrepancy was discovered in one of the Registrant’s timesheets, which led to a further review. The Registrant is alleged to have recorded and claimed for hours when she was actually on leave. Further, the Registrant is alleged to have falsified the signature of her supervisor, Colleague A, on 7 timesheets.

17. Colleague LL was appointed as the Investigating Officer on behalf of the Trust and conducted a review of the timesheets.

18. The Panel heard oral evidence from Colleague LL and Colleague A, the Registrant’s Supervisor. The Panel found them to be credible and reliable witnesses.

19. The Panel had careful regard to the Registrant’s written Response Pro-Forma and Pre Hearing Information Form in which she indicated that she admitted in their entirety the facts alleged in the Notice of Allegation sent to her on 23 January 2019. The Panel noted that when confronted by her Supervisor at a meeting on 22 January 2018, the Registrant is recorded as having admitted her failings and apologising for her actions. The Panel also had careful regard to the Registrant’s email to the HCPC dated 14 May 2019 in which she expressed her remorse and apologised for “the past mistakes I have made and any subsequent damage I have caused to the public and wider health and care profession”, and provided information in relation to matters since the incidents in question.

20. The documentary evidence before the Panel included:

• Written statements prepared for the HCPC of Colleague LL and Colleague A

• Fitness to Practise Referral Form dated 9 April 2018

• Registrant’s Time Sheet 20 - 26 November 2017

• Registrant’s Time Sheet 27 November – 3 December 2017

• Registrant’s Time Sheet 4 - 10 December 2017

• Registrant’s Time Sheet 11 - 17 December 2017

• Registrant’s Time Sheet 18 - 24 December 2017

• Registrant’s Time Sheet 1 - 7 January 2018

• Registrant’s Time Sheet 8 - 14 January 2018

• Registrant’s Time Sheet 15 - 21 January 2018

• Letter from Colleague A 16 May 2018

• Minutes from meeting with registrant on 22 January 2018

• Colleague A Personal Roster Diary 1 November 2017 – 31 January 2018

• Standard Operating Procedure for authorising locum timesheets

• Photocopy of Annual Leave Log Book 12, 18 & 19 January 2018

Decision on Facts:

21. At the outset of the hearing the Panel noted that the Registrant had made formal admissions to the facts alleged. However, in the absence of the Registrant it decided to hear from the witnesses and to test the evidence advanced in support of the factual allegations.

22. In reaching its decision on facts, the Panel had careful regard to all the evidence put before it, to the submissions of Ms Vignoles on behalf of the HCPC and to the written representations of the Registrant. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 1 – Found Proved (by way of admission)

[Whilst registered as an Occupational Therapist with the Health & Care Professions Council and employed by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, you:]

1. Recorded on the Locum Time Sheet which you submitted for the week commencing 8 January 2018, hours worked on 12 January 2018, when you were absent from work on leave that day.

23. The Panel had careful regard to the Registrant’s admissions and to the written statement and oral evidence of Colleague LL. Colleague LL stated that the Team Annual Leave Diary recorded the Registrant’s January 2018 leave dates as 12, 18 and 19 January However, the Registrant had falsely claimed in her timesheet to have worked 7 hours on 12 January.

24. The Panel had sight of the Team Annual Leave Diary and the Registrant’s timesheet for 12 January 2018 and was satisfied the contents were in accord with the evidence of Colleague LL as set above.

Particular 2 – Found Proved (by way of admission)

[Whilst registered as an Occupational Therapist with the Health & Care Professions Council and employed by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, you:]

2. Recorded on the Locum Time Sheet which you submitted for the week commencing 15 January 2018, hours worked on 18 and 19 January 2018, when you were absent from work on leave on those days.

25. The Panel had careful regard to the Registrant’s admissions and to the written statement and oral evidence of Colleague LL. Colleague LL stated that the Team Annual Leave Diary recorded the Registrant’s January 2018 leave dates as 12, 18 and 19 January However, the Registrant had claimed in her timesheet to have worked 7 hours on 18 January and 7 hours on 19 January. The Panel was told by Colleague A that she went to look for the Registrant on Thursday 18 January 2018 and could not find her at work. She also said that the Registrant was not at work on Friday 19 January 2018 and thus the first meeting in relation to the matter was held on Monday 22 January 2018.

26. The Panel had sight of the team annual leave book and the Registrant’s timesheet for 18 and 19 January 2018 and was satisfied the contents were in accord with the evidence of Colleague LL as set above.

Particular 3 – Found Proved (by way of admission)

[Whilst registered as an Occupational Therapist with the Health & Care Professions Council and employed by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, you:]

3. On or around the following dates falsified the signature of your supervisor, Colleague A on the Locum Time Sheet:

a. 4 December 2017, for the week commencing 27 November 2017;

b. 11 December 2017, for the week commencing 4 December 2017;

c. 15 December 2017, for the week commencing 11 December 2017;

d. 22 December 2017, for the week commencing 18 December 2017;

e. 5 January 2018, but signed it as 5 November 2018, for the week commencing 01 January 2018;

f. 12 January 2018, for the week commencing 8 January 2018;

g. 19 January 2018, for the week commencing 15 January 2018;

27. The Panel had careful regard to the Registrant’s admissions and to the written statements and oral evidence of Colleague LL and Colleague A.

28. Colleague LL stated that all the timesheets referred to in this particular purported to have been signed and dated by Colleague A. Colleague LL stated that Colleague A had not always been at work on the dates indicated in the documents. The Panel noted that Colleague A had not been on duty on the dates 22 December 2017 and 5 January 2018 and therefore could not have signed the timesheets on those dates.

29. Colleague A stated that she had been asked to examine each of the timesheets referred to in this particular and had produced a statement dated 16 May 2018 in which she had confirmed that she had signed none of them. She informed the Panel that she knew the signatures on the timesheets were not her own, partly because, she had not always been at work on the dates when they were purportedly signed, but also because the accompanying handwritten confirmation of her name, the date of signing and her position was not in her handwriting and on 19 January 2018 her surname had been misspelt. Colleague A told the Panel that she had been at work on 11 December 2017 when the timesheet for the week commencing 4 December 2017 had purportedly been signed by her, but she was sure that the accompanying handwriting in the confirmation section was not hers.

30. Colleague A informed the Panel that she and Colleague TE had met with the Registrant on 22 January 2018 to discuss the concerns with the timesheets and that minutes of the meeting had been made by Colleague TE. The Panel had careful regard to the minutes and noted that they recorded the Registrant as admitting that she had signed the timesheets herself but being unable to offer an explanation for why she had done so and why she had not asked another senior member of staff to sign her timesheets when Colleague A was not available to do so. In respect of the hours claimed, as set out in particulars 1 and 2, the Panel noted that the minutes record that the Registrant was unable to offer any explanation for her actions.

31. The Panel had sight of each of the timesheets referred to in this particular and to the Team Annual Leave Diary and Colleague A’s Personal Roster Diary. It was satisfied that the Registrant had acted as alleged in Particular 3.

Particular 4 – Found Proved (by way of admission)

4. The matters described at particulars 1 – 3 were dishonest.

32. Having found that the Registrant had claimed for hours she had not worked and had falsified the signature of her supervisor, Colleague A, on 7 timesheets, the Panel considered whether the Registrant had been dishonest in doing so. To this end, the Panel had careful regard to the guidance provided in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.

33. Although the Registrant has not put forward a clear explanation as to why she acted as she did in relation to Particulars 1 and 2, the Panel had no doubt that she had claimed for hours she knew she had not worked in order to obtain payment to which she was not entitled.

34. In the absence of an explanation from the Registrant, the Panel was unable to form a clear view as to why she had falsified Colleague A’s signature as set out in Particular 3 a) – e) when it would have been open to her, in the absence of Colleague A, to request another senior colleague to sign her timesheets. However, the Panel had no doubt that the Registrant had knowingly falsified Colleague A’s signature in order to mislead the Trust into believing that her timesheets had been signed by Colleague A when this was not the case.

35. In the Panel’s judgment, ordinary, decent people provided with the information that has been put before the Panel, would conclude that the Registrant had acted dishonestly in relation to Particulars 1, 2 and 3.

Decision on Grounds:

36. The Panel had careful regard to the submissions of Ms Vignoles and the representations of the Registrant. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

37. Ms Vignoles referred the Panel to the Privy Council case of Roylance v GMC (No2) [2000] 1 AC 311 in which Lord Clyde stated:

“misconduct is 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 …practitioner in the particular circumstances.”

38. Ms Vignoles submitted that the Registrant had fallen below the standards expected of a Registered Occupational Therapist in that she had breached the HCPC’s “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics”.

39. 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, or as Elias LJ put it in R (on the Application of Remedy UK Ltd) v GMC [2010] EWHC 1245 (Admin) “sufficiently serious.... that it can properly be described as misconduct going to fitness to practise.”

40. The Panel found that the Registrant was in clear breach of the HCPC’s “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics”, 2016 edition, as follows:

9. Be honest and trustworthy

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

41. The Panel considered that in dishonestly claiming for payment to which she was not entitled and in dishonestly falsifying Colleague A’s signature on her timesheets, the Registrant had abused the trust placed in her by her colleagues, her employer and the public. Further, her dishonest actions had brought the profession into disrepute. In the Panel’s view, the seriousness of the Registrant’s actions was compounded by its repetition and duration.

42. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct fell far short of what would have been proper in the circumstances and was unacceptable. The public rightly expects to be able to trust Registered Occupational Therapists to behave with honesty and integrity. In acting as she did, the Registrant’s dishonesty was so serious as to call into question her fitness to practise as a Registered Occupational Therapist.

43. For all the reasons set out above, the Panel had no doubt that the Registrant’s dishonest actions constituted a falling short so serious as to constitute misconduct going to her fitness to practise.

Decision on Impairment:

44. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her misconduct. It had careful regard to all the evidence before it and to the submissions of Ms Vignoles.

45. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired”.

46. The Panel first considered past impairment. It found that the Registrant’s misconduct had breached key standards of the HCPC’s “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” as set out above, had in respect of Particulars 1-3 been dishonest, had brought the profession into disrepute and had undermined confidence in the profession. In these circumstances the Panel had no doubt that, at the times in question, the Registrant’s fitness to practise had been impaired by reason of her misconduct.

47. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of that misconduct. In addressing the personal component of impairment, the Panel asked itself whether the Registrant is liable, now and in the future, to repeat misconduct of the kind found. In reaching its decision, the Panel had particular regard to the issues of insight and remediation. It noted that the Registrant had entered the Register as an Occupational Therapist on 5 January 2017, and that there had been no suggestion that she has been the subject of any other regulatory concerns.

48. 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.”

49. The Panel recognised that the Registrant had immediately admitted her actions when confronted by Colleagues A and TE in their meeting with her on 22 January 2018, and had on that occasion apologised to Colleague A for falsifying her signature. The Panel also noted that in her Response Pro-Forma and Pre Hearing Information Form the Registrant had made formal admissions to all the facts alleged. In addition, the Panel had careful regard to her email to the HCPC dated 14 May 2019 in which she states:

“I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologise for the past mistakes I have made and any subsequent damage I have caused to the public and wider health and care profession…I take full responsibility for the actions I have taken. I agree with the statutory ground on which the allegation is based (misconduct) and accept any resulting consequences. What I have done is wrong and I will not make excuses for the decisions I have made and actions I have taken.”

50. The Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated early and significant continuing insight into the unacceptability of her actions and its impact, both potential and actual, on colleagues and on the public as well as on the reputation of the profession.

51. The Panel had careful regard to Silber J’s guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that Panels should take account of:

• Whether the conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable;

• Whether it has been remedied; and

• Whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.

52. The Panel recognised that remediation of misconduct which involves dishonesty may not be easy. However, it considered that evidence of reflection and insight is a good starting point. The Panel noted the Registrant’s email to the HCPC dated 14 May 2019 in which she stated:

“I have taken steps to adjust my practice to ensure I do not harm the public and hopefully regain their confidence in the profession and regulatory process.

- On 23 January 2018 I met with PN, Operations Manager of [the organisation], who…was placing me in roles as a locum Occupational Therapist. This meeting was an opportunity to reflect on my mistakes and take responsibility for my actions. I was sincerely remorseful and [the organisation] allowed me to continue working for them as an occupational therapist, giving me a second chance to demonstrate that I can be trusted to act professionally.

- …I have continued to work as an occupational therapist for 7.5 months in 2 consecutive roles between 29 January 2018 and 14 September 2018 and a further 3 months from February 2019 to present. I have acted professionally throughout these roles and have reported my hours worked accurately and honestly.”

53. The Panel considered that, while the Registrant had not appeared before it in person or provided corroborative evidence of the matters set out in her email to the HCPC, that document nevertheless contained strong reassurance that the Registrant had developed significant insight into her failings and had taken substantial steps to remediate her misconduct. In the Panel’s independent judgment, the risk of repetition is low.

54. For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired on the personal component.

55. The Panel then went on to consider whether a finding of impairment is necessary on public interest grounds. In addressing this component of impairment, the Panel had careful regard to the critically important public 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.”

56. The Panel asked itself whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment of fitness to practise was not made in the circumstances of this case. The Panel had no doubt that it would.

57. Honesty is a fundamental requirement of the profession of Occupational Therapy. Informed members of the public would be troubled to learn that the Registrant had, over a period of time, repeatedly falsified the signature of her Supervisor on her timesheets, and that on two separate occasions she had claimed payment for work she had not undertaken. For these reasons, a finding of impairment on public interest grounds is required.  

58. For all the reasons set out above the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component only. The Allegation is well founded.

Decision on Sanction:

59. The Panel next considered what, if any, sanction to impose on the Registrant’s registration.

60. The Panel had careful regard to all the evidence put before it, and also to the submissions of Ms Vignoles.

61. Ms Vignoles drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC’s Indicative Sanctions Policy and submitted that the question of sanction is a matter for the Panel’s own independent judgment.

62. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

63. In reaching its decision, the Panel had at the forefront of its thinking the principle of proportionality and the need to balance the interests of the Registrant with the protection of the public and the wider public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and the HCPC, and in declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and performance.

64. The Panel had in mind that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, though they may have a punitive effect. The Panel considered all the options open to it, starting with the least restrictive and working up the scale of restrictiveness.

65. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel had regard to all the circumstances, including the following mitigating and aggravating features of the case:

Mitigating

· At the times in issue the Registrant was a relatively newly qualified Occupational Therapist. Since then, she has been working as a Registered Occupational Therapist for in excess of 10.5 months without further incident;

· The Registrant made early admissions and has demonstrated significant insight, remediation and remorse;

· There has been no finding of impairment on the personal component;

· The Trust did not sustain financial loss as a result of the Registrant’s misconduct.

Aggravating

· The dishonesty was not isolated and was repeated over a period of  weeks;

· The Registrant’s actions breached the trust placed in her by her employer, her colleagues and the wider public.

66. The Panel first considered whether it would be appropriate to impose no sanction in this case. It gave careful consideration to Paragraph 8 of the Indicative Sanctions Policy. The Panel recognised that taking no action after a finding of impairment is likely to be an exceptional outcome, but may be appropriate in cases where impairment has been found on public interest grounds alone and where the Registrant has insight, has already taken remedial action and there is no risk of repetition. In this case the Panel found there is a low risk of repetition. The Panel considered that taking no action would neither protect against the risk of repetition nor serve the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and the regulatory process and declaring and upholding proper standards.

67. The Panel then considered whether it would be appropriate to refer the matter for mediation. It had careful regard to Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Indicative Sanctions Policy. It noted that mediation may only be used if the Panel is satisfied that the only other appropriate course would be to take no further action. This is not such a case.

68. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Caution Order. It had careful regard to the factors set out in Paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Indicative Sanctions Policy and noted that such an order may be appropriate where there is a low risk of recurrence and the Registrant has shown insight and taken appropriate remedial action, all of which apply to this Registrant. The Panel noted that a Caution Order will appear on the register against the Registrant’s name for the duration of the order and may be taken into account if a further Allegation is made against this Registrant. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order would be appropriate and proportionate in this case. In the Panel’s judgment, the Registrant’s failings were not relatively minor, but were isolated in the sense that they occurred in a single short episode of employment and have not been repeated. The Panel concluded that, while the misconduct could appropriately be marked by a Caution Order, the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s dishonesty was such that a duration of the maximum period of five years was necessary and proportionate in order to send a clear message to Occupational Therapists and the public that such conduct is unacceptable and must not be repeated. In the Panel’s view a period of 5 years ensures that public confidence would not be undermined.

69. The Panel did consider the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order. It had regard to Paragraphs 30 - 38 of the Indicative Sanctions Policy and noted that there has been no suggestion of clinical failings on the part of the Registrant, and that its finding of impairment was made in respect of the public component only. In these circumstances, the Panel was unable to formulate appropriate conditions. For this reason, the Panel went on to consider whether a Suspension Order might be an appropriate and sufficient response to its findings in this case. However, it concluded that such a course would be unduly punitive and disproportionate given its finding as to the sufficiency of a Caution Order for the maximum period of 5 years.

 

 

 

 

 

Order

Order:  That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Miss Jessica Ricci with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of 5 years from the date this order comes into effect.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Miss Jessica Ricci

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
16/05/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Caution