Mr John Byekwaso

Profession: Social worker

Registration Number: SW26263

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 02/09/2019 End: 17:00 06/09/2019

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

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Suspended

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation

Allegation as amended at the substantive hearing

Whilst registered with the Health and Care Professions Council as a Social Worker and whilst employed by the London Borough of Newham Council, you:

1. In respect of Service User 1, for whom you had been the allocated social worker for her child until 16 February 2017, on a date or dates between 05 April 2017 and 21 April 2017:

a) Visited the home of Service User 1 without professional cause and/or reason:

i) on or around 16 April 2017 and/or

ii) on or around 17 April 2017

b) On or around 17 April 2017, provided Service User 1 with personal information about your family life;

c) Told Service User 1 that you were looking for a girlfriend;

d) On or around 17 April 2017, asked Service User 1 if two of her friends were single;

e) On or around 17 April 2017, asked Service User 1 if she was single;

f) Sent a number of texts and/or made a number of telephone calls to Service User 1;

g) Did not record the visit and/or telephone calls to Service User 1 on Service User 1’s child’s electronic case record.

2. The matters set out in paragraphs 1(a) – (g) were sexually motivated.

3. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 – 2 amount to misconduct.

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

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Service of Notice

1. The notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant at his address as it appeared on the register on 22 May 2019. The notice contained the date, time and venue of this hearing.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, and is satisfied that notice of this hearing has been served in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the Conduct and Competence Rules 2003 (the “Rules”).

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

3. The Panel then went on to consider whether to proceed in the absence of the Registrant pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules. In doing so, it considered the submissions of Ms Skelton on behalf of the HCPC.

4. Ms Skelton submitted that the HCPTS has taken all reasonable steps to serve the notice on the Registrant. Ms Skelton further submitted that the Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC, nor with the HCPTS, and that an adjournment would serve no useful purpose. The Registrant wrote to the HCPC on 8 July 2019 indicating that he would not be attending the hearing and that he would not be submitting any evidence or submissions. Ms Skelton reminded the Panel that there was a public interest in this matter being dealt with expeditiously.

5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He advised that, if the Panel is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to notify the Registrant of the hearing, then the Panel had the discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. He cautioned the Panel that the discretion was to be exercised with care and caution as set out in the case of R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5.

6. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to the case of GMC v Adeogba and Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and advised the Panel that the Adeogba case reminded the Panel that its primary objective is the protection of the public and of the public interest. In that regard, the case of Adeogba was clear that “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, however, it is only right that it should proceed”.

7. It was clear, from the principles derived from case law, that the Panel was required to ensure that fairness and justice were maintained when deciding whether or not to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

8. The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made by the HCPTS to notify the Registrant of the hearing. It was also satisfied that the Registrant is aware of the hearing.

9. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel took into consideration the HCPTS practice note entitled ‘Proceeding in the Absence of a Registrant’. The Panel weighed its responsibility for public protection and the expeditious disposal of the case with the Registrant’s right to a fair hearing.

10. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the following:

• The Registrant has not made an application to adjourn today’s hearing and implicit in his email dated 8 July 2019, in which he states he will not be attending, is an expectation that proceedings proceed in his absence;

• The Registrant has engaged with the process but only in so far as he has replied to emails from the HCPTS and admitted some particulars. He has not submitted further written representations;

• There is a public interest that matters are dealt with expeditiously.

11. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. There is a distinction between a case where the Registrant is clearly aware of the hearing date, and one where there has been no response from the Registrant. It determined that it was unlikely that an adjournment would result in the Registrant’s attendance at a later date, in the light of the email from the Registrant. Having weighed the public interest for expedition in cases against the Registrant’s own interests, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Amendment of Allegation

12. Ms Skelton, on behalf of the HCPC, applied to amend the Allegation. Ms Skelton submitted that the amendments sought were consistent with the evidence before the Investigating Committee, and that the amendments served to clarify the allegation by giving further and better particulars.

13. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised that it was open to the Panel to amend the allegation, provided the Panel was satisfied that no injustice would be caused by the amendments. The Panel considered that the amendments sought did not change the substance of the allegation. The amendments did clarify the allegation and would not cause injustice, as it is always preferable that allegations are as clear as possible so that registrants are clear what is alleged against them in order for them to respond. The Panel therefore allowed the amendments to be made. The amended Allegation is as set out above and the original Allegation is appended to this decision.

Background

14. The London Borough of Newham (“LBN”) employed the Registrant as a Social Worker between July 1997 and June 2017. The Registrant’s role entailed ensuring and promoting the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable children in need of support or at risk of harm.

15. The Registrant was the allocated Social Worker for Service User 1’s child until 16 February 2017, when the family moved and was transferred to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“LBWF”).

16. In April 2017, Service User 1 raised with her new allocated Social Worker, Witness 2, concerns regarding the Registrant texting, phoning and visiting her at home. Service User 1’s child was made subject to a Child Protection Plan due to concerns regarding domestic abuse in the home from the child’s father.

17. Witness 2, was a social worker at LBWF at the material time who took over responsibility for Service User 1 from the Registrant.

18. On 31 May 2017, Witness 1 investigated these matters. He was the Service Manager for Integrated Neighbourhood Working for the LBN.

19. Following the outcome of the investigation and the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, this matter was referred to the HCPC.

Decision on Facts

20. The Panel considered all the evidence in this case together with the submissions made by Ms Skelton on behalf of the HCPC.

21. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who reminded the Panel that the burden of proof rests with the HCPC, and that the Registrant need not disprove anything. He advised that the Panel was entitled to take into account the admissions made by the Registrant to some of the factual particulars when determining whether those factual particulars are proved.

22. The Legal Assessor also reminded the Panel that the standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities.

23. The Panel heard oral evidence from Witness 1 and Witness 2 on behalf of the HCPC.

24. The Panel found both Witness 1 and Witness 2 to be open and honest witnesses. Witness 1’s evidence was consistent and credible. Witness 2’s memory was clearly affected by the passage of time and on occasion inconsistent but she did her best to assist the Panel. The difficulty with their evidence is that it consisted mainly of what they were told by others. The Panel was satisfied that Witness 1 accurately recalled what he was told by others, who have not been called to give evidence. Where Witness 2’s evidence was inconsistent with earlier records the Panel preferred her contemporaneous accounts in the documentary evidence.

25. The Panel also received a bundle of evidence which included, amongst others:

• The investigation report of Witness 1 and interviews carried out with staff and the Registrant;

• Email correspondence between Witness 2 and her managers;

• Screenshots taken of Service User 1’s phone showing records of calls allegedly made by the Registrant;

• Signed admissions made by the Registrant; and

• Phone records of the Registrant’s work mobile.

26. The Panel firstly considered those particulars of which the Registrant admitted by way of a signed document dated 19 June 2019. Admissions were made to particulars 1(a)(i), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(f), 1(g), and 2. Particular 1 relates to purely factual matters and Particular 2 is an allegation that relates a matter of specific intent, namely sexual motivation.

Particulars 1(a)(i), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(f), 1(g)

27. These particulars are clear and pose no interpretation issues. The evidence in support of them included hearsay evidence of Service User 1’s account to the witnesses, the photographs of Service User 1’s log of phone calls received, and Witness 1’s investigation interview with the Registrant. In his investigation interview, the Registrant’s account was to some extent consistent with the account provided by Service User 1. The Panel determined that, whilst the hearsay evidence is inherently less reliable than direct evidence, in this case the separate pieces of evidence in relation to these admitted particulars are consistent with each other and demonstrate that the Registrant did act in the manner alleged by these factual particulars.

28. The witness evidence, which the Panel accepted, was that the Registrant attended the home of Service User 1 on 16 April 2017. He made a number of phone calls and texts to her from his work and personal phones on Easter Sunday 16 April 2017, Easter Monday 17 April 2017 and 21 April 2017. On one of those occasions on 17 April 2017 he telephoned the service user and during the conversation he asked her if she was single. He also asked in sequence if two of her friends were single and that he was looking for a girlfriend. He told her about his personal relationship. These actions took place after he ceased to be Service User 1 child’s social worker in February 2017. The Panel found he had no professional reason to contact the service user after that time. Accordingly, Particular 1(a) is found proved.

29. The Panel determined that Particular 1(a)(i), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(f), 1(g) were proved on the balance of probabilities based upon the evidence before it, which was also corroborated by the Registrant’s admissions made to these proceedings.

Particular 1(a)(ii)

In respect of Service User 1, for whom you had been the allocated social worker for her child until 16 February 2017, on a date or dates between 05 April 2017 and 21 April 2017:

a) Visited the home of Service User 1 without professional cause and/or reason:

ii) on or around 17 April 2017

30. The HCPC relies on the hearsay evidence of the friend of Service User 2, who was not called by the HCPC as a witness.

31. This particular is denied by the Registrant and the evidence is unclear as to whether there were two visits made by the Registrant or one. The Registrant’s consistent position was that he only ever made one visit to Service User 1’s home address, that being on Easter Sunday, 16 April 2017.

32. The evidence of Witness 2 is that the friend told her, during a visit, that the Registrant had attended Service User 1’s address on Easter Sunday, 17 April 2017. Witness 2 told the Panel that Service User 1 had told her that the Registrant had visited her when her friend had answered the intercom on her behalf. Witness 2 did not enquire whether this was the occasion on Easter Sunday, or another occasion. The Panel had sight of an email dated 21 April 2017 from Witness 2’s Team Manager which mentions visits from the Registrant to Service User 1 and her friend on Easter Sunday and Easter Monday. The Panel considered the email from Witness 2 dated 15 May 2017 which refers to one visit on Easter Sunday 17 April 2017.

33. The Panel determined that a reasonable person is more likely than not to remember the day upon which an event occurred, rather than the date it occurred, particularly one as significant as Easter Sunday. It was more likely than not that the friend of Service User 1 was accurate in remembering the day she saw the Registrant, but was wrong about the date being 17 April 2017. In that year, Easter Sunday fell on 16 April 2017.

34. Therefore the Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence provided by the HCPC to confirm that there was a visit Easter Monday. It was only recorded once as third hand hearsay. Accordingly, Particular 1(a)(ii) is not proved on the evidence before it.

Particular 1(e)

In respect of Service User 1, for whom you had been the allocated social worker for her child until 16 February 2017, on a date or dates between 05 April 2017 and 21 April 2017:

e) On or around 17 April 2017, asked Service User 1 if she was single;

35. The Registrant denied this particular when indicating which particulars he admitted and which he contested. Witness 2’s evidence was that Service User 1 told her that the Registrant had asked her if she was single, and also asked whether two of her friends were single. Witness 2 stated there was no ambiguity about Service User 1’s assertion in this regard.

36. Witness 2 told the Panel that Service User 1 was not making a complaint against the Registrant but was querying the behaviour of the Registrant. Witness 2 said that Service User 1 did not have any reason to invent this account, and the Registrant does not deny that he did ask the Service User about her friends and whether they were available to pursue a relationship with him. Witness 2 found Service User 1 to be honest during her time working with her and observed no malice from her towards the Registrant. Witness 2 observed a professional and positive relationship between the Registrant and Service User 1 at the joint handover meeting of 1 February 2017.

37. The Panel noted that in his interview with Witness 1, the Registrant stated that he had only asked Service User 1 about her friends and that he did not have any interest in Service User 1. He said that he did not ask Service User 1 about her availability for a relationship.

38. The Panel took account of Witness 2’s evidence that she escalated her concerns about the Registrant’s conduct because Service User 1 reported that the Registrant’s behaviour made her feel uncomfortable.

39. The Panel determined that on the balance of probabilities, the evidence demonstrates that the Registrant did ask Service User 1 if she were single.

40. Therefore, the Panel find Particular 1(e) proved on the balance of probabilities.

Particular 2

The matters set out in paragraphs 1(a) – (g) were sexually motivated.

41. The Panel reminded itself of the Legal Assessor’s advice in relation to sexual motivation. He had reminded the Panel that allegations of sexual motivation in the regulatory context are particularly serious allegations and for that reason, any Panel will wish to seek cogent evidence before it concludes that a case of sexual motivation is made out. It is a matter that requires a specific intent on the part of the Registrant and it is a concept that stands on its own. It is not the same as carelessness, recklessness, or negligence. Sexual motivation is, as it were, in its own box and the Panel must regard it in that way.

42. The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel that they were entitled to take into consideration that the Registrant had admitted his actions were sexually motivated. However, the Panel was also aware that the questions that the Panel should ask itself when determining whether the Registrant’s actions were sexually motivated are as follows:

1) to determine whether a reasonable person would consider that the questions asked were, because of their nature, sexual; or

2) whether a reasonable person would, on the balance of probabilities conclude, that because of the circumstances, the questions asked were sexual in nature.

43. The Panel was aware that, even if it found that some of the Registrant’s actions were inappropriate, it does not necessarily mean that they were sexually motivated.

44. Therefore the Panel carefully considered whether the conduct of the Registrant was sexually motivated. It had regard to the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin). The Panel took into account the Registrant’s good character and also the evidence of Witness 2 that he was professional towards Service User 1 at the 1 February meeting.

45. The evidence before the Panel demonstrates that in April the Registrant was interested in pursuing a relationship with Service User 1. In his interview with Witness 1, the Registrant said that was making the enquiries because he was trying to find a girlfriend. To that end, he made persistent efforts to contact her by visiting her, telling her that he was single and he was looking for a girlfriend, calling her on her mobile and leaving messages for her.

46. The Panel determined that there was sufficient evidence to infer that the relationship sought by the Registrant was intended to culminate in a sexual relationship, if not immediately then sometime in the future. This is corroborated by the admission by the Registrant that his actions were sexually motivated.

47. Therefore the Panel determined that Particular 2 is proved on the balance of probabilities.

Decision on Grounds

48. The Panel then went on to consider whether the factual particulars found proved amounted to misconduct. The Panel heard the submissions of Ms Skelton on behalf of the HCPC.

49. The Panel also considered the Registrant’s previous written submissions to the Panel.

50. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred the Panel to the decisions in the case of Roylance v GMC (2000) 1 AC 311.

51. The Panel was aware that misconduct is “a word of general effect, involving some act or omission, which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances.” It is also aware that it was stressed that Misconduct is qualified by the word “serious”. It is not just any professional misconduct, which would qualify.

52. The Panel was also aware that not every instance of falling short of what would be proper in the circumstances, and not every breach of the HCPC standards would be sufficiently serious such as to amount to misconduct in this context. Therefore, the Panel has had careful regard to the context and circumstances of the matters found proved.

53. The Panel took into account that the Registrant was an experienced Social Worker who had worked for LBN for about 20 years and was also experienced in dealing with child protection issues and vulnerable service users.

54. With the exception of Particular 1(g), all of the other factual particulars found proved relate to professional boundaries. The Registrant’s actions clearly breached professional boundaries, in that he should not have contacted Service User 1 without professional reason to do so.

55. Furthermore, the Registrant was in a position of significant power and trust in the circumstances:

(a) Service User 1 was in a vulnerable position, in that she was worried that her child might be taken into care (there were public law family proceedings active at the time);

(b) The Registrant’s role was to assess Service User 1’s ability and suitability to safely parent her child;

(c) The Registrant was aware of all the intimate details of Service User 1’s life, background and circumstances, including her vulnerabilities.

56. The Panel determined that the Registrant had abused his position of trust and his actions set out in the factual particulars found proved, apart from Particular 1(g) were so serious that they constitute serious professional misconduct. It was also clear from the evidence of Witness 1 and Witness 2, both of whom are Social Workers, that they considered the Registrant’s actions to be completely inappropriate and a serious breach of professional boundaries.

57. In relation to Particular 1(g), the Panel determined that the Registrant was not under a duty to record his contact with Service User 1 in the circumstances. He was no longer her Social Worker and had no professional reasons to access her records.

58. The Panel considered that on the facts found proved the Registrant had breached the following paragraphs of the HCPC’s standards of conduct, performance and ethics:

1. You must act in the best interests of service users.

1.7 You must keep your relationship with service users and carers professional

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

59. Accordingly the Panel finds that all the factual particulars found proved, apart from Particular 1(g) amounted to the statutory ground of Misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

60. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct. The Panel heard the submissions of Ms Skelton and it accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

61. The Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to the approach set out in the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant (2011) EWHC 927 (Admin), and reminded the Panel that there was a personal and public component when considering whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired.

62. For this purpose, the Panel adopted the approach formulated by Dame Janet Smith in her fifth report of the Shipman inquiry by asking itself the following questions:

“Do our findings of fact in respect of the Registrant’s misconduct show that his fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that he:

a) has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put service users at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

b) has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the [Social Worker] profession into disrepute; and/or

c) has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the [Social Worker] Profession?”

63. The Panel determined that the answers to all the above questions were in the affirmative in relation to past, and future possible conduct. In coming to its decision it took into account the following factors in relation to the personal component:

(a) The Registrant’s actions in attempting to take advantage of a vulnerable service user could have put her at unwarranted risk of harm;

(b) Service User 1 had told Witness 2 that she lost respect for the Registrant because of his actions and he had made her feel uncomfortable;

(c) There is limited evidence of any insight on the part of the Registrant. This is a matter of misconduct, and there can only be very limited remediation without insight. Witness 1 told the Panel that the Registrant had expressed remorse for his actions at his disciplinary hearing. However, without his attendance, the Panel have been unable to test whether his remorse was genuine in relation to his actions. Nor has the Panel been afforded the opportunity to test the Registrant’s insight. The Panel accepted that there was some evidence of insight demonstrated by the evidence and his admissions but was unable to test the level of insight on the part of the Registrant.

(d) There has been no evidence of any action taken by the Registrant to remediate his misconduct. Therefore there was a real risk of repetition on the part of the Registrant.

Accordingly, the Panel found the Registrant was currently impaired on the personal component.

64. In relation to the public component, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s misconduct was such that the need to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the professions would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances. His actions in breaching professional boundaries and in abusing his position of trust would be of widespread concern to social workers and members of the public.

65. Therefore, Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both personal and public interest considerations.

Decision on Sanction

66. The Panel heard the submission of Ms Skelton with regard to sanction.

67. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had regard to all the evidence presented, and to the Council’s Indicative Sanctions Policy. The Panel reminded itself that a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind the principles of fairness and proportionality when determining what the appropriate sanction in this case should be.

68. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be:

(a) The Registrant was in a position of trust and his misconduct was a serious breach of trust;

(b) Service User 1 was a vulnerable person due to her personal circumstances;

(c) The Registrant’s lack of insight and the risk of repetition.

69. The Panel considered the following to be mitigating features in this case:

a) The Registrant made early admissions;

b) The Registrant is of good character;

c) This is a single incident in an otherwise unblemished career of 20 years in the same Local Authority. Witness 1 was clear that the Registrant was a respected Social Worker, who was reliable, competent and willing to help others.

d) There was some evidence of difficulties in his personal life.

70. In considering the matter of sanction, the Panel started with the least restrictive moving upwards.

71. The Panel first considered taking no action but concluded that, given the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct, this would be wholly inappropriate.

72. The Panel then considered whether to make a Caution Order. The Panel was mindful of its finding that there was a real risk of repetition by the Registrant of his misconduct. In any case, these matters are too serious for a caution order to be considered appropriate.

73. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel has found that the Registrant has not demonstrated sufficient insight into his misconduct. This was not a case where the Registrant’s skills as a Social Worker are in question. There are no identifiable areas of his practice, which might benefit from re-training. These are matters involving a serious breach of professional boundaries.

74. Taking into account all of the above, the Panel concluded that conditions could not be formulated which would adequately address the risk posed by the Registrant, and in doing so protect service users, colleagues and the public during the period they are in force.

75. The Panel went on to consider whether a period of suspension would be appropriate in this case. A period of suspension would be appropriate if the Registrant had demonstrated insight into his misconduct such that there was not a significant risk of repetition, and also if there was no evidence of deep seated-personality or attitudinal problems.

76. The Registrant has engaged with this regulatory process, but has not provided further evidence of insight or remorse. He has not attended the hearing and the Panel has not been able to test his insight into his misconduct. The Panel was satisfied that there was some evidence of insight and remorse from the fact of the Registrant’s early admissions and expressions of remorse during the Local Authority’s disciplinary process.

77. The Panel bore in mind the principle of proportionality and also reminded itself that the public interest also included the retention of a competent social worker who is able to continue making a valuable contribution to the profession. The Panel also took into account Ms Skelton’s representation that sexually motivated conduct in this case was at the lower to moderate end of the spectrum of sexually motivated conduct.

78. In that light, the Panel determined that the appropriate sanction in this case is a Suspension Order. A Suspension Order would adequately protect the public, uphold confidence in the profession and the regulatory process while at the same time provide an opportunity for the Registrant to demonstrate to a reviewing panel his insight. In cases of misconduct, insight is of greater importance than remediation by attending courses.

79. The Panel considered that a Striking-Off order at this stage would be disproportionate. The fact the Registrant has expressed the view that he currently no longer wishes to remain in the profession is not sufficient ground to strike him off the Register when a Suspension Order is the appropriate sanction at this stage.

80. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the only appropriate and proportionate response to protect the public and the wider public interest in these circumstances is to make a Suspension Order. The Suspension is for a period of 12 months to mark the seriousness of misconduct.

81. This Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires and the panel reviewing the order may be assisted by the following:

(a) The attendance of the Registrant at the review hearing, which demonstrates to some degree a commitment to remaining in the profession;

(b) Evidence that he has reflected on his misconduct such as a reflective piece on how his misconduct could have affected the Service User, his colleagues, and the reputation of his profession and the Local Authority; and

(c) An update of what his current circumstances are, in relation to maintaining his CPD.

Order

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

Notes

Interim Order

1. Ms Skelton sought an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period.

2. The Panel had sight of the Notice of Hearing that was sent to the Registrant for this hearing and was satisfied that it gave notice to the Registrant that an Interim Order could be applied for in the event a sanction of suspension was imposed in the case.

3. 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 John Byekwaso

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
02/09/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended