Mr Shaun P Healy

Profession: Paramedic

Registration Number: PA18881

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 25/11/2019 End: 17:00 27/11/2019

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service, 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Struck off

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 Paramedic and during the
course of your employment with Iqarus Limited, on or around 1 May 2018, you;

1. Created a counterfeit BOSIET Certificate;

2. You submitted a counterfeit BOSIET Certificate to your employer;

3. Your conduct in paragraph 1 - 2 was dishonest.

4. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 - 3 constitute misconduct.

5. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Service:

  1. Notice of the hearing was sent to the Registrant by a letter sent on 9 September 2019, by first class post and also by email. The Panel had sight of a signed Proof of Service Certificate confirming the sending of the Notice of Hearing on 9 September 2019 to the Registrant’s address held by the HCPC. The Panel was satisfied that service had been made in accordance with the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).
    Proceeding in Absence:
    2. Miss Manning-Rees on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the Panel should exercise its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
    3. The Panel considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel referred to the HCPTS Practice Note of September 2018 on proceeding in absence and to the guidance that a hearing panel should consider as provided by the cases of R v Jones (Anthony) [2004] 1 AC 1HL and GMC v Adeogba and GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. Applying that guidance, the Panel was careful to remember that its discretion to proceed in absence is not unfettered and must be exercised with the utmost caution and with the fairness of the hearing at the forefront of its mind.
    4. The Notice of Hearing dated 9 September 2019 informed the Registrant of the date and details of the Conduct & Competence Committee hearing, and of his right to attend and be represented. The Registrant was also advised of the Panel’s power to proceed with the hearing in his absence if he did not attend and of how he could apply for an adjournment of the Hearing. He was informed of the sanctions and powers available to the Panel, should it find his fitness to practise to be currently impaired.
    5. The Registrant had responded to the Notice of Hearing of 9 September 2019 by way of an undated completed "Response Pro-Forma and Pre Hearing Information Form." In that form the Registrant stated that he was not planning to attend the hearing. No request for an adjournment had been received, nor was there any indication that the Registrant wished to attend the hearing but for some reason, such as a health issue, was unable. There was no suggestion that he had sought to instruct a representative.
    6. Taking all the above circumstances into account, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC process in relation to this hearing in any meaningful way. It was unlikely in all the circumstances that an adjournment would secure his attendance on a future date. The Panel took the view that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend and adjourning this hearing would serve no purpose.
    7. The Panel was mindful that it must also consider fairness to the HCPC, whose case was ready to proceed today. The HCPC’s first witness was present and ready to give evidence, and a second witness had been scheduled for tomorrow. The Panel took account of the public interest in the expeditious resolution of regulatory allegations and the impact of cost and delay caused by an adjournment upon other cases. Following the guidance in the case of Adeogba, given that there was no good reason to adjourn the hearing, the Panel decided it was in the public interest to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
    8. The Panel acknowledged that in the Registrant’s absence, it should ensure that the hearing was as fair as circumstances permit. It would not regard the Registrant’s absence as an admission to the allegations. The Panel was also mindful that it should ask questions and consider points which may be in the Registrant’s interests and were reasonably apparent from the evidence.

Application to amend the Allegation:
9. At the outset of the Hearing, Miss Manning-Rees applied to amend the Allegation by making a small number of stylistic changes in order to ensure that paragraph 2 of the Allegation was both grammatically correct and drafted in a manner consistent with paragraph 1. The Registrant was notified of the proposed amendments in the Notice of Hearing dated 9 September 2019 and had made no response. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendments were in order to correct typographic errors and caused no prejudice to the Registrant. Accordingly, the proposed amendments were approved and the Allegation was amended as set out above. The words added by way of amendment are set out in bold.


10. The Panel noted that in the Response Pro-forma referred to above the Registrant responded to the question as to whether he admitted the facts alleged in the Notice of Allegation as follows: "In Part. I admit to unwittingly submitting an altered document to my employer." In light of the equivocal nature of this response the Panel did not treat it as an acceptance of any factual allegation. Paragraphs 5 and 6 always remain a matter for the independent judgment and experience of the Panel.

Background:
11. The Registrant is a Registered Paramedic. "Iqarus" is a provider of medical and health care professionals to businesses. The HCPC case was that in the Registrant had worked as a contractor on various projects for Iqarus in 2017 and for the early part of 2018 before approaching Iqarus on 29 March 2018 by email with a view to securing a more permanent, employed position. He attached to that email a copy of his CV and a number of Certificates that were mandatory requirements for working as an Offshore Medic in addition to having the appropriate experience and background for the role. Those Certificates included:
(i) A BOSIET (Basic Offshore Safety and Induction Emergency Training) Certificate; and
(ii) A MIST (Minimum Industry Safety Training) Certificate.


12. The Registrant was subsequently employed by Iqarus as an Offshore Medic from 2 May 2018 to 8 June 2018. His first job was on the Brae Bravo oil platform in the North Sea, and was completed on 23 May 2018. Both BOSIET and MIST Certificates were required for the role, in accordance with the standard job specification. A second job was then lined up for the Registrant to undertake a similar role on a different oil platform, but before he could commence that role concerns were raised as to the validity of the two mandatory Certificates that had been submitted by the Registrant.


13. The HCPC case was that each of the Certificates was bogus. They purported to confirm that the Registrant had undertaken the relevant training giving rise to the Certificates at the South Tyneside College in October 2016. He had not; enquiries revealed there to be no record of enrolment for the Registrant with the College in 2016, the College did not run the relevant courses on the dates stipulated on the Certificates and the Certificates bore numbers and signatures relating to courses undertaken in fact in 2012.


14. When challenged on the issue by a Human Resources representative of Iqarus on 30 May 2018 the Registrant denied all knowledge of wrongdoing and said that it must be a mistake. However the following day the Registrant sent out email to another member of Human Resources in which he stated:
"I'm writing this in regards to the debacle of my MIST and Bosiet certification.
[Name] I have just now learned of circumstances that were unknown to me, I can't go into too much detail, hence the lateness of the email.
I now accept that my certification is not valid and would like to resign with immediate effect, this is the only honourable option open to me..."


15. On 5 June 2018 a referral was made to the HCPC by Iqarus.


16. The HCPC contended that the Registrant's submission of counterfeit Certificates that were mandatory requirements for a professional role for which he was applying, and subsequently completing an Offshore Medic job without holding the required valid certification, was dishonest. Furthermore, it was contended that this behaviour fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and of what the public would expect of an HCPC registered Paramedic. Accordingly, the HCPC’s case was that the Registrant's behaviour amounted to misconduct and that his fitness to practice was thereby impaired.

Documentation:
17. The Panel received the HCPC hearing bundle, numbered pages A1- D104, a small bundle of correspondence concerning service and the Registrant's Response Pro-forma.


18. No written submissions or further documents had been received from the Registrant for the purpose of the hearing.

Witnesses:
19. In support of the HCPC case, the Panel heard live evidence from:
(i) CW, a School Administrator at Tyne Coast College, formerly known as South Tyneside College; and
(ii) NL, a Human Resources Business Partner employed by Iqarus at the time of the events that are the subject to this hearing.


20. Witness CW gave evidence in person before the Panel. She confirmed the contents of her witness statement and adopted the same as her evidence in chief. She outlined that her role at the College involved undertaking administrative and reception duties for the Marine Offshore Safety Training Department, within the Marine School. CW confirmed that the Registrant had successfully completed BOSIET and MIST training courses in October 2012, and had been issued with the relevant Certificates each of which would have been valid for four years. CW's unequivocal evidence was that the two Certificates that she was asked to consider (being those that had been submitted to Iqarus) were counterfeit as:


(i) the Registrant was not enrolled with the College in 2016;
(ii) the College did not run the relevant courses on those dates in 2016;
(iii) the Certificate numbers were those applicable to the Certificates awarded to the Registrant in 2012;
(iv) the signatures on the Certificates were the same as those on the Certificate as awarded to the Registrant in 2012, and one of the signatures was that of a staff member who no longer held the Certificate-authorising role in 2016.


21. Witness NL gave evidence by way of telephone link, with the leave of the Panel. She confirmed the contents of her two witness statements and adopted the same as her evidence in chief. Witness NL's evidence confirmed the submission by the Registrant of the BOSIET and MIST Certificates to Iqarus in March 2018 and the subsequent Offshore Medic job that he undertook in May 2018 in part reliance upon these mandatory training Certificates. Witness NL's evidence was that the Certificates related to safety training that was an essential part of working offshore.


The Panel's approach:
22. The Panel received and accepted advice from the Legal Assessor. The Panel was reminded that the burden of proof is upon the HCPC which brings the allegations. It was not for the Registrant to prove his innocence. This remained the case where the Registrant did not attend the hearing.


23. The standard of proof in HCPC proceedings is the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, meaning that before finding a fact proved the Panel must be satisfied it is more likely than not that it occurred.


24. The Panel undertook a careful process of examining the witness and documentary evidence in support of each factual particular and sub-particular in the allegations.


25. The Panel first considered the issue of witness credibility.


26. The Panel was impressed by CW as a witness and was prepared to put significant weight on her evidence.


27. The Panel found NL, to be similarly credible and professional in giving her evidence. The Panel was impressed by her evidence and accepted it.


28. The Registrant had not attended the hearing and no submissions regarding the allegations had been received from him. The Panel treated the allegations as denied and remained mindful throughout that the burden of proof is upon the HCPC. The Panel, as well as the HCPC Case Presenter, ensured during the Hearing that they asked the HCPC witnesses any questions arising from the evidence which might have assisted the Registrant’s case. The Panel drew no adverse inference from the Registrant’s absence, however his non-engagement did mean that he had placed no evidence before the Panel that was capable of contradicting or undermining the evidence relied upon by the HCPC.


Decision on Facts:
29. The Panel found as facts that on or around 29 March 2018 the Registrant submitted counterfeit BOSIET and MIST Certificates to Iqarus. It relied upon and accepted the unchallenged evidence of witnesses CW and NL, noting that it had not been presented with any evidence that contradicted or undermined that adduced on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel also had regard to the Registrant's email to Iqarus on 31 May 2018, in which he clearly accepted that his BOSIET and MIST certifications were not valid. Accordingly, the Panel found paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Allegation proved.


30. The Panel also found as a fact that in May 2018 the Registrant completed and Offshore Medic job which had required valid certification which he did not possess. The Panel's reasoning for making this finding was precisely the same as that in relation to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Allegation. Accordingly, the Panel found paragraph 3 of the Allegation proved.


31. Having found the facts giving rise to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 proved, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been acting dishonestly in respect the conduct alleged in each paragraph. It found that the Registrant had submitted Certificates that he knew were counterfeit and which were intended to deceive Iqarus; their submission was a deliberate attempt to secure employment which required him to have up-to-date training certificates that he did not in fact have. The Panel rejected the explanation proffered by the Registrant in his email of 31 May 2019, suggesting that these were "circumstances that were unknown to [him]" and his assertion in the Response Pro-Forma that he had "unwittingly submitted an altered document to [his] employer." No one other than the Registrant stood to benefit from the deception that was being practised, the Registrant would have known that he had not undertaken the 2016 courses which the certificates purported to evidence, and the Registrant would have been aware from the job specification provided by Iqarus that the Offshore Medic job required him to hold the relevant valid certification.


32. The Panel was in no doubt that reasonable and honest people would consider that deliberately to submit false training Certificates that were a pre-requisite of the role for which a Registrant was applying was thoroughly dishonest. In the Panel's view, precisely the same reasoning applied to the Registrant's completing the Offshore Medic job without holding the necessary valid certification. The certification was mandatory and, accepting the evidence of witness NL, essential for safely working offshore. The experienced Registrant would have been well aware of that. Accordingly, the Panel found paragraph 4 of the Allegation proved in its entirety.


Decision on Grounds – Misconduct:
33. The Panel bore in mind that there is no statutory definition of what constitutes misconduct; it is an ordinary English word, but in the context of professional regulation it customarily represents conduct falling seriously short of what the public has a right to expect from a Registrant, often by reference to the documented standards for their particular profession. Misconduct must be serious, the sort of conduct that fellow practitioners may describe as "deplorable".


34. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, and found that the Registrant's behaviour in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 breached the following provisions:
• Standard 6 - Identify and minimise risk.
• Standard 9 - Be honest and trustworthy.


35. The Panel also found that the Registrant's behaviour in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 breached the following provisions of the HCPC's Standards of proficiency for Paramedics:
• Standard 2 - Be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession.
• Standard 15 - Understand the need to establish and maintain a safe practice environment.

36. The Panel considered that the facts found proved were extremely serious. In the opinion of the Panel the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was planned and required a degree of sophistication in the production, either by himself or someone else on his behalf and at his behest, of carefully 'doctored' certificates intended to dupe a potential employer. Thereafter, dishonestly undertaking work in respect of which he had not recently undertaken essential safety training had the clear potential to place not just the Registrant but also work colleagues at risk. The Panel noted the evidence of witness NL that
"the implications of not completing the [MIST] course are significant. The risks of working offshore are already significant and it is important everyone is up-to-date on industry changes such as changes to safety equipment or understanding the best practice for emergency situations. For example, if one of the team members cannot complete a task from the training, such as opening a window on a helicopter in water then this could have a significant impact on the rest of the team in the helicopter..."


37. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant's conduct as found proved in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Allegation represented behaviour falling far short of that required of a Paramedic Registrant and that it amounted to misconduct. To characterise this sort of behaviour as other than misconduct would fail to address the public interest, which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator, together with declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

Decision on Impairment:
38. The Panel next considered whether, by reason of the Registrant’s misconduct, his fitness to practise is currently impaired.


39. Miss Manning-Rees submitted that in the light of its findings on facts and grounds, the Panel should find the fitness of the Registrant to be currently impaired in relation to both the public and private components of current impairment.


40. No submissions regarding impairment had been received from the Registrant.


41. In considering current impairment, the Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor Impairment is a matter for the judgment of the Panel. The Panel kept in mind that not every finding of misconduct will necessarily result in a conclusion that fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel was also mindful that it must consider the currency of the alleged impairment.


42. The Panel considered the personal and public components of current impairment. In relation to the personal component, the Panel considered whether there was any evidence that the failings were capable of being remedied, whether there was evidence that they have been remedied and whether there was a risk of repetition. The Panel bore in mind that dishonesty may often be attitudinal in nature, and therefore more difficult to remediate. Since the Registrant had not engaged in this hearing and had not put forward any submissions or evidence, there was no information before the Panel demonstrating that he had made any attempt at remediation. The Panel concluded that it could not safely exclude the risk of repetition of dishonesty by the Registrant.


43. In the Registrant’s absence, there was also no evidence before the Panel that he accepted the extent of his failings. Similarly, there was no evidence before the Panel at this hearing to suggest that since his dishonest misconduct in March and May 2018 the Registrant had gained or demonstrated any insight into that misconduct. In the circumstances of this case, where there was an absence of insight and no evidence of remediation, the Panel concluded that there remained a high risk of repetition of dishonesty by the Registrant.


44. In considering the public component of impairment, the Panel concluded that the public, notably the Registrant's work colleagues, had been placed at risk of harm by his misconduct.


45. Furthermore, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession of Paramedics, and in the HCPC as its regulator, would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made in this case, particularly given the identified risk of harm and the Panel's findings of dishonesty.


46. The Panel was also satisfied that professional standards would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made in this case, particularly given the seriousness of the Panel's findings thus far.


47. The Panel accordingly found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct, both on public protection grounds and also to address the wider public interest.

Decision on Sanction:
48. Miss Manning-Rees made submissions on the issue of sanction. She did not propose a particular sanction in this matter, but referred the Panel to the HCPC Indicative Sanctions Policy.


49. No information has been received from the Registrant as to his current circumstances, nor have there been any submissions or evidence in mitigation.


50. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, though a sanction may have a punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind that its primary function at this stage was to protect the public, while reaching a proportionate sanction, taking into account the wider public interest and the interests of the Registrant. The Panel referred to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and applied it to the Registrant’s case on its own facts and circumstances. The Panel had particular regard for the Policy's guidance in relation to cases of dishonesty as follows:
"The Standards of conduct, performance and ethics require registrants to be honest and trustworthy (Standard 9). Dishonesty undermines public confidence in the profession and can, in some cases, impact the public’s safety.
Dishonesty, both in and outside the workplace, can have a significant impact on the trust placed in those who have been dishonest, and potentially on public safety. It is likely to lead to more serious sanctions. The following are illustrations of such dishonesty:


• providing untruthful information in job applications (perhaps misleading the prospective employer about experience, training or skills gained);


Given the seriousness of dishonesty, cases are likely to result in more serious sanctions. However, panels should bear in mind that there are different forms, and different degrees, of dishonesty, that need to be considered in an appropriately nuanced way. Factors that panels should take into account in this regard include:


• whether the relevant behaviour took the form of a single act, or occurred on multiple occasions;

• the duration of any dishonesty;

• whether the registrant took a passive or active role in it;

• any early admission of dishonesty on the registrant’s behalf;

• any other relevant mitigating factors."

51. The starting point for the Panel was that the Registrant’s misconduct was serious, involving dishonesty that was not isolated, and which put the public at risk. The Panel had no current information to indicate that his misconduct had been addressed. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant continues to pose a current risk of harm to the public and to the wider public interest.


52. The Panel considered mitigating and aggravating factors.


53. In relation to mitigation, no submissions or evidence had been put forward on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel took into account the following:


• The Registrant has not previously been the subject of regulatory findings.


54. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors in this case:
• The Panel's findings of pre-planning and relative sophistication.

• This was not an isolated incident, but the deception persisted over a two month period.

• The public, notably the Registrant's work colleagues, was placed at risk of harm as a result of the Registrant’s misconduct.

• The Registrant had failed to engage in the HCPC proceedings and had failed to demonstrate any insight, remorse or remediation.


55. The Panel was satisfied that, when the aggravating features are considered in the round, they amount to very serious misconduct on the part of the Registrant.


56. In light of all of the circumstances, the Panel considered what sanction, if any, should be applied, and considered its powers in ascending order of seriousness, thereby starting with the least restrictive.


57. In this case, it is not appropriate to make no order because of the serious nature of the Registrant’s misconduct.


58. Neither Mediation nor a Caution Order is appropriate because the failings of the Registrant were neither minor nor isolated, and the misconduct on the part of the Registrant was of a serious nature. A risk of public harm had been identified and the safety of the public and the wider public interest would not be protected if the Panel were to take either of these courses. Taking into account the Registrant’s lack of engagement with the HCPC, the Panel was of the view that the issues proved were too serious to be addressed by means of these disposals of the case.


59. The Panel has taken into account guidance in the HCPC Indicative Sanctions Policy to the effect that a decision to make a Conditions of Practice Order
“…will be regarded as confirmation that, beyond the conditions imposed, the registrant is capable of practising safely and effectively”.


60. The Panel could not formulate workable or appropriate conditions that could address the dishonest misconduct in this case. Furthermore, applying the Indicative Sanctions Policy, the Panel considered the lack of engagement by the Registrant in this process, and its concern that there was no evidence of insight or remediation. In these circumstances, the Panel could not have confidence that the Registrant would be committed to complying with a Conditions of Practice Order, nor could he be trusted to do so.


61. The Panel also took the view that given its findings a Conditions of Practice Order was neither an appropriate nor proportionate response to the seriousness of the misconduct identified by the Panel, nor would it be sufficient to address the wider public interest.


62. The Panel next considered whether a period of suspension would be appropriate. The Panel bore in mind its finding that the Registrant represents a continuing risk of harm to the public and the public interest.


63. The Sanctions Policy identifies that a period of suspension
"is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
· the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
· the registrant has insight;
· the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
· there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings."

64. The Panel found the Registrant's lack of insight and failure to engage with his regulator, together with its assessment of the risk of repetition, gravitated against the imposition of a suspension order. The Panel had no cogent reason to believe that the Registrant was willing or able to remedy his failings. Furthermore, the Panel was satisfied that a Suspension Order would not be a proportionate response to the very serious dishonest misconduct found in this case.


65. The Panel acknowledged the public interest in the retention of an experienced Paramedic who can demonstrate that he can practise safely, but was satisfied that no lesser sanction than a striking off order was sufficient to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour or maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. It was satisfied that the Registrant's serious misconduct, accompanied by the identified risk of repetition, is fundamentally incompatible with being a registered Paramedic.


66. The Panel was mindful of the significant impact that such an order may have on the Registrant in terms of financial, personal and professional hardship. In any event, the Panel determined that the protection of the public and the wider public interest outweigh the Registrant's interests in this regard.


67. Accordingly, the Panel has determined the appropriate order is a Striking Off order.

 

 

 

Order

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Shaun P Healy from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Notes

Interim Order:
Application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence with an Interim Order application:
68. Miss Manning-Rees made an application for the Hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence in order to consider an application by the HCPC for an interim order.


69. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing sent to the Registrant on 9 September 2019 had been served in accordance with the Rules. There had been no change in circumstances since the initial application to proceed in absence on the first day of the hearing, in that there had been no communication from the Registrant.


70. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing informed the Registrant that an application for an immediate interim order may be made in the event that the Panel made a finding and imposed a sanction which suspends his right to practise. There was no information before the Panel to indicate that the Registrant wished to attend or sought an adjournment for any reason. The Panel was therefore satisfied it was appropriate to proceed to hear the HCPC’s application in the Registrant’s absence.

Application for an Interim Order:


71. Miss Manning-Rees made an application for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period, on the ground that it was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest.


72. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It bore in mind that it must consider whether an interim order was necessary in accordance with the test set out in Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, and that it must act proportionately, imposing the lowest order which would adequately protect the public.


73. The Panel considered the issue of proportionality and balanced the interests of the Registrant with the public interest.


74. The Panel had determined to impose a substantive Striking Off Order. It had made findings that the public were at real risk of harm if the Registrant were able to continue to practise unrestricted. Accordingly, the Panel determined that an interim order was necessary in order to protect the public and in the wider public interest.


75. The Panel was satisfied, for the same reasons as in respect of its substantive decision, that an interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate. The Panel therefore directed that the Registrant’s registration should be suspended on an interim basis.


76. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate duration of the interim suspension order was 18 months, as the interim order would continue to be required pending the resolution of an appeal in the event of the Registrant giving notice of an appeal with the 28-day period.


Interim Suspension Order
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. 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 Shaun P Healy

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
25/11/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Struck off