Miss Donna Louise Fallows
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 firstname.lastname@example.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Whilst registered with the HCPC and employed by Staffordshire County Council as a Social Worker:
1. On 21 August 2018, at Staffordshire Magistrates Court, you were convicted of, between 31/05/2016 and 14/10/2017, stealing money, to the value of £6,466.90, belonging to Staffordshire County Council. Contrary to section 1(1) and 7 of the Theft Act 1968.
2. On 08 September 2016, at Staffordshire Magistrates Court, you were convicted of, on 05/05/2016 driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 117 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit. Contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988.
3. You did not inform the HCPC of your conviction at paragraph 2 above, in the course of your application to re-register on or around 27 October 2016.
4. Your actions as described at paragraph 3 were dishonest.
5. The matters set out at paragraphs 3 and 4 above amount to misconduct.
6. By reason of your convictions and/or misconduct, your fitness to practise as a Social Worker is impaired.
1. The notice of hearing was sent to the Registrant on 7 August 2019 by post and by email. The Registrant is clearly aware of the hearing because, although she has not attended, she sent a letter to the HCPC dated 16 August 2019 to say that she would not be attending the hearing “due to other commitments” and she set out information regarding the Allegation that she asked the Panel to take into account. The Panel accepted there had been good service of the notice of hearing.
Proceeding in absence
2. Mr Bridges for the HCPC asked the Panel to consider proceeding in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. The letter from the Registrant dated 16 August 2019 clearly stated that she would not be attending the hearing. There was a public interest in proceeding with reasonable expedition. The Registrant was not asking for an adjournment. It was clear that there would be some limited disadvantage experienced by the Registrant in not being present at the hearing. The Panel took into account, in that context, that in response to the Registrant’s letter dated 16 August 2019 the HCPC had responded by offering the Registrant an opportunity to participate by telephone link. The Registrant had not responded to that offer. In view of this, the Panel was satisfied that it was unlikely that the Registrant would attend on any future occasion if the hearing were to be adjourned. The Panel concluded that the proper and fair course was to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.
Application by the HCPC to amend the Allegation
3. Mr Bridges asked permission to amend Particular 3 of the Allegation. As originally drafted it read “You did not inform the HCPC of your conviction at paragraph 2 above”. Mr Bridges asked that the words “in the course of your application to re-register on or around 27 October 2016” be added to the particular to more accurately clarify the allegation.
4. The Panel took into account the need to be fair to both parties. There was a public interest in an allegation being properly formulated with sufficient supporting detail. It was also important that a registrant, particularly one who was not present, should not be disadvantaged by any amendments. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendments did not change the nature of the particular or broaden its scope. It simply made it more specific and, furthermore, the supporting documentation already provided to the Registrant made it plain that it had been at the time of the Registrant making an application for registration that the alleged failure to inform had taken place. Therefore, the proposed amendments would not in any way create a new particular about which the Registrant had previously been unaware. The Panel granted the application.
5. The Registrant is registered as a Social Worker with the Health and Care Professions Council (“HCPC”).
6. At the relevant times, the Registrant was employed as a Team Manager by Staffordshire County Council.
7. The HCPC case is that:
• in September 2016 the Registrant was convicted of an offence of driving with excess alcohol which, in contravention of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, she dishonestly failed to disclose to the HCPC;
• in August 2018 the Registrant was convicted of an offence of dishonesty in stealing money to a value of £6466.90 belonging to her employer.
8. The Panel considered all of the documentation provided by both parties. The HCPC relied upon the evidence of a single witness, NB, a Registration Manager at the HCPC, who was not called to give live evidence. The evidence of NB was therefore hearsay and the Panel took into account the factors in the Civil Evidence Act relating to the weight to be placed on hearsay evidence. The Panel found the evidence of NB to be clear and reliable.
Decision on Facts
9. The HCPC has the burden of proving the factual particulars on the balance of probabilities.
10. This concerns the conviction of theft at Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court on 21 August 2018. This conviction is supported by a memorandum of conviction provided by the Court. In the letter dated 16 August 2019 the Registrant accepts she was convicted and sentenced in respect of the offence.
11. In that respect the Panel has noted that the Registrant pleaded guilty. She was sentenced to a Community Order including a curfew for 8 weeks with electronic monitoring and a Rehabilitation Activity requirement to run for up to 30 days. She was also ordered to pay costs and a victim surcharge.
12. Having regard to the evidence provided the Panel is satisfied that this particular is proved.
13. The Panel has also noted what has been said by the Registrant in her letter dated 16 August 2019 that the Community Order was revoked on 21 June 2019 on the ground of her good progress.
Particular 1 is proved.
14. This relates to the conviction on 8 September 2016 on a charge of driving with excess alcohol. This conviction is supported by a memorandum of conviction provided by the Court. In a meeting attended by the Registrant as part of an investigation/disciplinary process taken by her former employer the Registrant disclosed this conviction.
15. The Panel is satisfied that this conviction is proved.
16. The Panel has taken into account what is shown in the memorandum of conviction regarding the particulars of the offence and the sentence. The Registrant had 117 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millimetres of breath. The Registrant was ordered to pay a fine of £1,000 plus costs and a victim surcharge totalling £720 and she was made the subject of a driving disqualification to run for 28 months which would be reduced to 21 months if she completed an approved course.
Particular 2 is proved
17. This particular asserts that the Registrant failed to disclose the driving with excess alcohol conviction to the HCPC when she applied to re-register on or around 27 October 2016. She had an obligation to do so by the terms of paragraph 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. The relevant part of that Standard stipulates “You must tell us as soon as possible if you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence”.
18. The Panel is satisfied that on the written evidence of NB and supporting documentation that the Registrant failed to disclose the conviction to the HCPC and on that basis this particular is proved.
Particular 3 is proved.
19. This particular asserts that in failing to disclose the excess alcohol conviction in the course of applying for re-registration, the Registrant was dishonest.
20. On the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel has taken into account the guidance given by the Supreme Court in the case of Ivey v Genting  UKSC 67 at paragraph 74 of the judgment:
“When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest”.
21. The relevant background evidence is that the conviction for driving with excess alcohol was imposed on 8 September 2016. The Panel has taken into account what is said in the witness statement of NB, an employee of the HCPC. At the relevant time, NB had a responsibility for dealing with registration renewal applications. The Registrant renewed her registration using an online renewal system on 27 October 2016. It is relevant to note that on the day after the conviction on 9 September 2016, the Registrant contacted the HCPC registration department to ask for a paper form on which she could make a positive declaration that, there was a detail she should declare when answering a particular question put in the registration application process. That question was “You must provide us with information about any health issues, convictions, police cautions and convictions for which you have received a conditional discharge before you renew”. Such a paper form was sent to the Registrant but she did not complete and return that paper form in making her online registration application. The fact of the Registrant’s contact with the HCPC and the dispatch of the paper form is corroborated by the computer record completed at the time.
22. The evidence from NB has been that at no time did the Registrant declare to the HCPC when she renewed her registration in October 2016, or at any other time, that she had received a conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
23. It is clear to the Panel that at the time of making her application for registration, the Registrant must have been aware of the conviction for driving with excess alcohol. That conviction had taken place 49 days before her registration application. It is very likely that the fact of the disqualification would have been in the mind of the Registrant on a daily basis during the intervening period. The Registrant had asked the HCPC to provide a paper form of declaration the day after receiving her conviction. It is likely that at about that time the Registrant was aware of the duty to notify the HCPC of the conviction. It is clear from the evidence that when the Registrant actually made her application, 49 days later, she did not notify the HCPC of the conviction. The Panel is satisfied that when the Registrant made her application for re-registration it was clear in her mind that she was making a declaration, namely that she had not been subject to a criminal conviction, that she knew was untrue.
24. It is clear to the Panel that such conduct would be considered as dishonest by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people. The particular asserting dishonesty is proved.
Particular 4 is proved.
Particular 5 – Statutory Ground
25. Particular 5 asserts misconduct as to the matters at Particulars 3 and 4. It is worth noting that Particulars 1 and 2 relate to the statutory ground of a conviction based case.
26. The Panel has taken the word “misconduct” to mean an act or omission that amounts to a serious breach or a serious falling short of professional standards.
27. The Panel has taken into account that the Registrant held a position of seniority as a Team Manager. By the Registrant’s own account in her letter dated 16 August 2019, she had had 19 years’ social work experience. She actively avoided disclosing the conviction in answer to a specific written question and in breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. The Panel has concluded that the actions of the Registrant amounted to breaches of Standards 9.1 and 9.5. Those are:
• You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
• You must tell us as soon as possible if you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence.
28. It is clear to the Panel that dishonesty by a social worker is serious and the Panel is also satisfied that it was a serious breach of professional standards for the Registrant to fail to disclose the conviction for excess alcohol.
29. The Panel has concluded that both Particulars 3 and 4 amount to misconduct.
Decision on Impairment
30. The Panel is making a judgment as to whether fitness to practise is impaired as at today’s date.
31. The Panel has taken into account the HCPTS Practice Note “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired”. The Panel has considered both the personal and the public components.
32. The personal component is the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant and the public component is the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and the need to maintain confidence in the social work profession.
33. In respect of the personal component the Panel has taken into account that the Registrant has shown some insight in that she has repaid the stolen money to her employer. At the Magistrates’ Court she made a full admission in respect of the charge of theft and had made admissions to the police. The Panel has taken into account that she entered a not guilty plea to the charge of driving with excess alcohol. She had 19 years’ experience as a Social Worker without any previous failings that are known to the Panel. The Panel has taken full note of all that the Registrant said in her letter dated 5 December 2017 that she sent to her employer in which she described a history of difficult personal circumstances which she believed had pressured her into committing the offence of theft. That letter was brutally honest in making a full acceptance to colleagues that she had committed “unlawful, despicable and unacceptable behaviour”. The Panel has also noted the account given by the Registrant in that same letter that at the time of the excess alcohol offence she was generally consuming too much alcohol as a result of domestic and financial pressures.
34. The Panel has concluded in view of the particular context underpinning the theft offence, there is a low risk that the Registrant would commit a further offence of theft. However, the Panel takes the view that there is little recognition on the part of the Registrant of the damage she has caused to the reputation of the social work profession in her commission of the offences of theft and driving with excess alcohol.
35. The Panel is bound to bring into consideration the fact that the pattern of theft continued over a prolonged period extending to about 17 months during which the Registrant made fraudulent declarations to the effect that service users were entitled to payments when in fact those payments were used by the Registrant for her own benefit. The Panel also takes into account that the Registrant shows little or no insight into the seriousness of failing to disclose the excess alcohol conviction and her dishonesty in that respect.
36. The Panel does give credit to the Registrant for her actions referred to in her letter dated 16 August 2019 where she highlighted her openness in confessing her theft to her employer and the police.
37. There is no material information as to what work the Registrant is currently undertaking.
38. The Panel has concluded that whilst there is some unsupported evidence from the Registrant as to insight and remediation there has not been sufficient insight particularly with regard to the dishonesty in connection with failing to disclose the excess alcohol conviction to the HCPC and the effect of the theft conviction on the profession and trust in social workers.
39. With regard to the public component and taking into account the seriousness of the Registrant’s offending it is clear to the Panel that informed members of the public would be shocked and troubled if the Panel were to find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired.
40. The Panel is satisfied that the two convictions of the Registrant were in respect of serious offences and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on that basis.
41. The Panel finds that the fitness to practise of the Registrant is impaired on both the personal and public component grounds.
42. Mr Bridges addressed the Panel on the question of sanction and referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy. He said that the HCPC took a neutral stance. The general principle was not to punish a Registrant but to protect the public. It would be relevant to take into account that, following the Magistrates’ Court conviction, the Registrant would have lost her general good character. The Panel should take into account any evidence of insight and remediation. The available orders should be considered in ascending order.
43. The Panel may find that the aggravating features were that this was an offence of theft of £6,466.90 by an employee which was committed over a period of about 17 months. The driving with excess alcohol offence involved a reading of 117 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, which was a very high reading that might have attracted a sentence of immediate imprisonment. The failure to disclose that conviction to the HCPC was a serious matter.
44. The mitigating features may be seen as the Registrant demonstrating a measure of insight. There was her cooperation with the police and the Magistrates’ Court on the theft charge and there had been some engagement by the Registrant in these proceedings.
45. The Panel would have to give consideration to the case of Fleischmann and that portion of the judgment that gave the guidance that in serious cases a Registrant should not be permitted to return to practice whilst still subject to the sentence imposed in criminal proceedings.
Decision on Sanction
46. The Registrant has not been present at the hearing but in considering sanction the Panel has fully taken into account all that the Registrant said in her workplace interviews, her interviews by the police and the various written letters and accounts she has given to other persons and to the HCPC.
47. The Panel took and accepted the legal advice given. It considered the appropriate order and took into account the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive. The primary purpose is to protect members of the public. In that regard a panel should take into account:
• any risks the Registrant may pose to those who use or need their services;
• the deterrent effect on other Registrants;
• public confidence in the profession concerned; and
• public confidence in the regulatory process.
48. In deciding what, if any, sanction to impose, panels should ensure that any sanction is proportionate and strikes a proper balance between the protection of the public and the rights of a Registrant. Proportionality means striking a proper balance between the competing interests of the Registrant and the HCPC’s overriding objective to protect the public.
49. The aggravating features in this case are:
• The theft conviction involved 54 fraudulent transactions carried out by the Registrant.
• Those fraudulent transactions were carried out over a period of about 17 months.
• The Registrant was actively involved in making the fraudulent transactions.
• Those transactions were carried out on the basis of premeditation.
• They involved an abuse of trust by a senior employee who was a Team Manager.
• The dishonesty in failing to disclose the conviction in respect of an offence of driving with excess alcohol was maintained over a number of months until the Registrant disclosed that fact during the workplace interview into the theft.
• There was a period of over a month during which the Registrant had cause to believe that her employer had become aware of her fraudulent activity before the Registrant made an acceptance of the fact that she had stolen money.
50. The mitigating features are that:
• The Registrant quickly repaid to her employer the £6466.90 that she had stolen. That is confirmed by the memorandum of conviction issued by the Magistrates’ Court which records that at the time of conviction there was no loss sustained by the employer.
• The account given by the Registrant of the pressure she was under from her partner to steal money. The Panel recognises that the information in this respect has all come from the Registrant and it is not independently corroborated. However, the Registrant’s account in this respect has been given to the employer, to the police and to the Panel. On each occasion the Registrant has given significant supporting detail and she has been consistent throughout in doing so. The Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the account given by the Registrant in this respect is reliable.
• The Registrant has participated in courses and counselling.
• She has engaged with this regulatory process. The Panel recognises that the Registrant has not attended the hearing but she has provided extensive written submissions. Those submissions show some insight and clear remorse. As is recorded above, in the letter to her employer dated 5 December 2017, the Registrant described her actions as “unlawful, despicable and unacceptable”.
• The driving with excess alcohol offence was committed at a time when the Registrant was living in a difficult relationship and when she was, in general, consuming too much alcohol.
• A Councillor of the employing authority attended the Magistrates’ Court to give a statement in support of the Registrant in which he put the opinion that he had never before seen a person so stricken by remorse.
51. In this case it is not appropriate to make no order because of the serious nature of the Allegation that is now proved. Mediation is not appropriate because the failings of the Registrant were neither minor nor isolated and involved dishonesty. A Caution Order is not appropriate because the misconduct on the part of the Registrant was of a serious nature.
52. The Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Sanctions Policy sets out factors to be considered when assessing whether such an order is appropriate. The Panel does not accept, having regard to the nature of the misconduct which includes dishonesty, that appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated. Furthermore, and as is suggested by the Sanctions Policy, Conditions of Practice are less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases including cases involving dishonesty. The Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order was not an appropriate sanction.
53. A Suspension Order 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.
54. The Panel is satisfied that the misconduct was a serious breach of the Standards. The Registrant has shown some insight. The assessment of the Panel is that an offence of theft is unlikely to be repeated. The likelihood of the Registrant driving with excess alcohol being repeated is more difficult to judge. However, the Panel takes into account that the difficult relationship has now ended and the Registrant clearly expresses shame and sorrow for her past behaviour. On that basis the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Registrant will not commit a further offence of driving with excess alcohol.
55. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that, potentially, this case can be suitably dealt with by means of a Suspension Order. As part of that assessment, the Panel considered the guidance on making a Striking-off Order. That is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent and deliberate acts involving dishonesty. The Panel recognises that the misconduct by the Registrant was serious, persistent and deliberate.
56. However, the Panel has also taken into account the guidance from the Sanctions Policy which states:
“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the Registrant:
• lacks insight
• continues to repeat the misconduct
• is unwilling to resolve matters”.
57. The Panel’s judgment is that none of those three factors can reasonably be said to apply to this Registrant.
58. Important factors are public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process, and the Panel accepts that this has to be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable and informed member of the public. Such a person will be presumed to know all of the information that is available to the Panel.
59. The information available to the Panel regarding the serious misconduct by the Registrant shows:
• The Registrant quickly repaid, in full, the money she had stolen. That repayment was made before the Magistrates’ Court hearing.
• The Registrant committed the theft and the offence of driving with excess alcohol whilst she was within a difficult relationship. The partner was pressuring the Registrant to obtain money to finance a proposed business venture. The Panel has a record of the police interview with the Registrant in which the Registrant gave clear supporting detail about the nature of the relationship which had previously been reported to the police.
• The Registrant had 19 years of experience of working as a social worker and, on the information presented to the Panel, she had no previous disciplinary action taken against her.
60. The Panel gave serious consideration to imposing a Striking Off Order but has concluded that to make such an order would not be a proportionate outcome because although the misconduct was undoubtedly serious and committed over an extended period, there are substantial background personal circumstances of the Registrant which should be taken into account. The Registrant had had a long period of service as a social worker with no previous known concerns about her work. That changed when she became involved in the difficult relationship. That relationship ceased sometime ago therefore, the Panel’s assessment is that there is a low risk of a repeat of dishonesty and a likelihood that a further offence of driving with excess alcohol would not be committed. The Registrant has expressed some insight and she is willing to resolve matters.
61. In all those circumstances the Panel has concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Suspension Order for one year. The period of the Suspension Order is at the maximum of one year to mark the seriousness of the dishonest conduct and its impact on the wider public interest.
62. That order will be reviewed before it expires. The Registrant will be invited to attend a review hearing. This Panel cannot bind the subsequent review panel. However, it is clear to this Panel that a later review panel would be helped if the Registrant were to attend that future hearing so that the panel can hear directly from the Registrant.
63. Not less than 28 days before the review hearing the Registrant must provide to the HCPC:
• A copy of testimonials in respect of any paid or unpaid work carried out by the Registrant since her employment with her employer ended.
• A detailed written reflective piece prepared by the Registrant that deals with the Registrant’s thoughts on:
- the theft and the driving with excess alcohol offences; and
- the impact her misconduct has had on public confidence in the social work profession and the impact on her employer.
• An account of the training and counselling that the Registrant has received and what she has learned as a result of this.
• A contemporaneous record of Continuing Professional Development carried out by the Registrant.
That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Miss Donna Louise Fallows for a period of 12 months from the date this order comes into effect.
This order will be reviewed again before its expiry.
Proceeding in Absence
1. Ms Parry asked the Panel to hear her application for an interim order in the absence of the Registrant. The hearing notice dated 7 August 2019 had put the Registrant on notice that if the Panel were to impose a sanction, an interim order may be considered.
2. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders. The Panel had to ensure that the Registrant was being given a fair opportunity to make representations. In the knowledge of the notice of hearing, the Registrant had written to the HCPC to say that she would not be attending. It seemed to the Panel to be unlikely that if this application were adjourned, that the Registrant would attend a future hearing. In those circumstances, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
3. Ms Parry asked the Panel to make an interim order on the two statutory grounds of protection of members of the public, and being otherwise in the public interest. She asked the Panel to take into account the gravity of the misconduct as that was set out in the Panel’s decision.
4. An interim order can only be made if the Panel is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for one or more of the three statutory grounds:
• necessary for protection of members of the public
• otherwise in the public interest, and
• in the interest of the Registrant.
5. The Panel has already found within the decision that the Registrant committed serious misconduct including dishonesty. The Panel takes the view that members of the public who face the prospect of being treated by a Registrant who has been found to have committed serious misconduct including dishonesty, may experience worry and concern. On that basis, it is valid to make an interim order in this case on the statutory ground that it is necessary to protect members of the public.
6. The Panel has considered the public interest ground and is satisfied that if the Registrant were permitted to continue in unrestricted practice, even while any appeal was being dealt with, a member of the public would be troubled. Therefore it is necessary, in order to maintain public confidence in the social work profession and in this regulatory process, to make an interim order on the ground that it is otherwise in the public interest.
7. In summary, the Panel is satisfied that two of the statutory grounds are made out and that an interim order is appropriate. Given the Panel’s conclusion above regarding sanction, that a Suspension Order is the appropriate outcome, it follows that the only realistic form of interim order is an Interim Suspension Order.
8. The Panel has considered the duration of the order. The maximum period is 18 months. The period during which an order is necessary will depend upon whether or not there is an appeal. The Panel makes an order which shall run for a maximum of 18 months, with the prospect of the order coming to an end earlier as set out below.
9. 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.
History of Hearings for Miss Donna Louise Fallows
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|05/09/2019||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Suspended|
|10/05/2019||Investigating Committee||Interim Order Review||Interim Suspension|
|18/02/2019||Investigating Committee||Interim Order Review||Interim Suspension|
|23/11/2018||Investigating committee||Interim Order Review||Interim Suspension|
|07/09/2018||Investigating committee||Interim Order Review||Interim Suspension|
|09/03/2018||Investigating committee||Interim Order Application||Interim Suspension|