Mrs Deborah Perrin
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 email@example.com or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
As a registered Operating Department (ODP12303) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or health condition. In that:
2. You have a physical and/or mental health condition as set out in Schedule A.
3. The matters described at 1a)-c) constitute misconduct.
4. By reason of your misconduct and/or health your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The Registrant was served with a Notice of Hearing on 29th October 2020. The Panel was accordingly satisfied that sufficient notice had been provided to the Registrant of the day, time and venue (virtual) of the hearing. The Panel was satisfied that email communication is an appropriate and necessary method of communication due to the current Covid-19 situation, and that the Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address, which the Registrant herself has used to correspond with the Council in this matter.
2. For the above reasons, the Panel has determined that there is good service of the Notice of Hearing.
Proceeding in Absence
3. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
4. Whilst the Panel is aware that a decision to proceed in the absence of the Registrant is one to be taken with great care and caution, the Panel has decided to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant in accordance with Rule 11 of the Health and Care Professions Council Rules 2003.
5. In reaching its decision, the Panel had regard to the following matters:
• Service of the appropriate notice of this hearing has been properly effected.
• The Registrant has not applied for an adjournment or sought to object to this hearing proceeding in her absence. In her email to the Council dated 27th October 2020 she stated “Please continue with the process… I will not be attending virtually.”
• The Registrant was fully aware of this hearing and had made an informed decision not to attend.
• The Registrant has engaged with the HCPC in relation to this matter and this is a hearing of the Registrant’s own application for Voluntary Removal from the Register.
• The HCPC consents to the Registrant’s Voluntary Removal from the Register.
• There would be no prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant if the hearing proceeds today.
• There is a public interest with the matter proceeding expeditiously.
Hearing in Private
6. The Panel noted that this case is primarily one concerning health, involving the health and private life of the Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel, as invited to do so by Mr Millin, decided that the hearing should be held in private. It did so on the basis that personal details of the Registrant's health should be kept private.
7. The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner. She was employed as an Operating Department Practitioner at Glangwilli General Hospital.
8. The employer provided the HCPC with information relating to the Registrant’s absences and informed the HCPC that she had been referred to occupational health.
9. On 12 May 2020, a Panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer against the Registrant.
10. The Panel decided that the matter should be referred to the Health Committee as they determined that the Registrant’s health conditions appeared to be a contributory factor to the alleged misconduct.
11. Prior to the Case to Answer Decision of 12 May 2020, the Registrant sent an email dated 07 May 2020 to the HCPC stating ‘Thank you Kimi I’m only pursuing so I don’t have my name on registration I’m fortunate I don’t need to work and will never again god knows my priorities are now walking with the dog in lock down I’m incredibly fortunate can my name be removed from the register I’m also wishing you and family well’.
12. The Registrant sent a further email to the HCPC dated 11 May 2020 stating ‘Thank you for your email. After careful consideration, I would like to have my registration removed from the register.’
13. The HCPC submits that, in all the circumstances, voluntary removal from the Register would be an appropriate means of resolving the current matter.
14. Given voluntary removal is equivalent in effect to a strike-off, the HCPC submits that the necessary public protection would be ensured by this course of action.
15. The HCPC also submits that it would not be detrimental to the wider public interest to dispose of this matter by way of voluntary removal. The HCPC reiterates that the Registrant has admitted the substance of the allegations and that voluntary removal from the Register will have the same effect as a strike-off. It is submitted that these factors are sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour.
16. It is therefore submitted that the Voluntary Removal Agreement is an appropriate and expeditious way of dealing with this matter and the HCPC respectfully invites the Panel to approve the proposed agreement.
17. The Panel considered all of the material before it including the main evidence bundle, the HCPC Skeleton Argument in support of the Voluntary Removal Agreement (“the VRA”), the email exchanges between the Registrant and the HCPC and the signed copy of the VRA.
18. The Panel also had regard to Mr Millin’s oral submission to the Panel today in which he adopted the content of his skeleton argument. He confirmed that the HCPC was satisfied that the Registrant fully understood the effect of the Voluntary Removal Agreement and that granting the application would not compromise the protection of the public or have any detrimental effect on the wider public interest.
19. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had careful regard to the content of the HCPTS Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent. The Panel had particular regard to the following part of the Practice Note:
“In cases where the HCPC is satisfied that it would be adequately protecting the public if the Registrant was permitted to resign from the Register it may enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement allowing the registrant to do so, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the registrant had been struck off.”
20. The Panel considered the reasons provided by both the HCPC and the Registrant to be sound. The Registrant has fully engaged with the HCPC, and recognised that her health condition makes it difficult for her to work as a registered healthcare professional. She has entered into the VRA freely and signed to confirm her comprehension that, were she to apply for readmission to the HCPC Register in the future, the VRA would operate as if she had been stuck off of the Register as a result of the Allegation being found proved.
21. The Panel noted the content of the Registrant’s correspondence with the HCPC in which she repeatedly stated that she no longer wanted to practise as a healthcare professional and wanted to be removed from the Register. The Panel was therefore satisfied that this was a considered and informed decision on the part of the Registrant.
22. The Panel noted from the documents that the Investigating Committee had concluded that there was a case to answer, and that the Registrant has admitted the Allegation as part of the VRA. The Registrant has also signed a Declaration that there was no other matter of which the Registrant was aware which might give rise to any other allegation.
23. The Panel was mindful of its overarching objective of protection of the public and the public interest.
24. The Panel therefore considered whether there were any factors that would make it undesirable to allow the allegation to be concluded on the consensual basis set out in the VRA. The Panel was satisfied that the public would be adequately protected if this Allegation were withdrawn and the Registrant permitted to have her name removed from the Register and leave the profession in accordance with the terms of the VRA.
25. The Panel was also satisfied that there are no overriding public interest factors that would require this matter to go to a full substantive hearing, given that poor health is recognised which led to this case.
26. The Panel is aware that if the Registrant seeks to return to the HCPC Register at any time in the future, her application would be treated as if she had been struck off as a result of the Allegation.
27. The Panel is satisfied that this means of disposal of this case is appropriate and proportionate, and is jointly in the interests of the public, the HCPC and the Registrant.
28. Accordingly, the Panel approves the Voluntary Removal Agreement.
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mrs Deborah Perrin from the Register with immediate effect.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Mrs Deborah Perrin
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|21/12/2020||Health Committee||Voluntary Removal Agreement||Voluntary Removal agreed|
|10/12/2020||Health Committee||Interim Order Review||Interim Suspension|
|14/09/2020||Health Committee||Interim Order Review||Interim Suspension|
|19/06/2020||Health Committee||Interim Order Review||Interim Suspension|
|06/02/2020||Investigating Committee||Interim Order Review||Interim Suspension|
|07/08/2019||Investigating Committee||Interim Order Application||Interim Suspension|