Miss Trina McCallion

Preliminary Matters
Notice of Hearing
1. The Panel found that there had been good service of the Notice of Hearing by letter dated 21 November 2019 which informed the Registrant of the date, time, and venue of the hearing.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant
2. Mr Bridges made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. He referred the Panel to correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

4. The Panel noted the e-mail from the Registrant dated 6 December 2019. The Registrant responded to questions about her attendance at the hearing. She advised that she would not be able to attend the hearing because she was in Ireland and that she would not be represented. She did not apply for a postponement of the hearing. On 10 December 2019 an HCPC Scheduling Officer replied to the Registrant asking the Registrant to let the HCPC know if she decided that she did wish to attend the hearing. The Registrant was also advised of the option of attending the hearing remotely. She did not reply to this correspondence.

5. The Panel carefully considered the circumstances of the Registrant’s absence and decided that she had voluntarily waived her right to attend the hearing. The correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC demonstrated that she was aware of the hearing. She did not request a postponement of the hearing, despite being advised of this option. She also did not take up the option of participating in the hearing remotely. The Panel did not consider that there was a realistic prospect that the Registrant would attend a hearing at a later date if the hearing was adjourned.

6. The Panel was informed that one of the HCPC witnesses was available to give evidence to the Panel from Australia. It had been anticipated that Colleague A would give evidence from Australia by video link, but unfortunately she was now unable to do so for health reasons. The Panel’s view was that Colleague A’s evidence was not central to the Allegation. There was also no information from the Registrant challenging Colleague A’s statement. In these circumstances, the Panel did not consider that it was appropriate to adjourn the hearing to enable Colleague A to give evidence by video link.

7. The Allegation relates to events in 2016-2017. The Panel’s view was that there was a public interest in the case being determined expeditiously and that the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests. The Panel therefore exercised its discretion to proceed with the hearing.

Application to amend the Allegation
8. At the start of the hearing Mr Bridges made an application to amend the Allegation. The Registrant was informed of the proposed amendments in a letter dated 15 July 2019.

9. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised the Panel to consider whether the amendments prejudiced the Registrant and whether they were appropriate.

10. The Panel decided that the proposed amendments did not create unfairness for the Registrant. The amendments clarified the Allegation and were minor in nature. The Panel decided that the amendments were appropriate and decided to allow them.

Application for MH to give evidence by telephone
11. Mr Bridges made an application for MH to give evidence by telephone rather than by video link because of a technical difficulty in establishing a video link.

12. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised the Panel that this decision was within the Panel’s case management powers, but that the Panel should consider whether it created any unfairness for the Registrant.

13. The Panel decided to allow MH to give evidence by telephone rather than by video link. Although video link is generally preferable because it assists the Panel in assessing the credibility of a witness, the Panel noted that there was nothing to suggest that the Registrant challenged MH’s evidence. MH’s evidence summarised documentary evidence and explained the process applied by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). The Panel did not consider that permitting MH to give evidence by telephone created unfairness for the Registrant.

Application to admit the statement of Colleague A as hearsay evidence
14. Mr Bridges made an application to admit the signed statement of Colleague A as hearsay evidence. He referred the Panel to the medical evidence from a health practitioner dated 17 January 2020 stating that the Registrant was not fit to participate in the hearing. The Panel was also provided with an e-mail from Colleague A dated 17 January 2020 confirming a health problem and her inability to participate in the hearing.

15. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She highlighted the case of El Karout v NMC [2019] EWHC 28 and the importance of the Panel considering whether or not hearsay evidence should be admitted.

16. The Panel decided to admit the evidence of Colleague A as hearsay evidence. It noted that the circumstances were very different from those in the case of El Karout v NMC. There was a properly recorded signed witness statement from Colleague A, who was aware that her statement was prepared for the purpose of regulatory proceedings. Colleague A had engaged with the process and the reason she was unable to give evidence by video link was a health reason.

17. The evidence of Colleague A was not the sole and decisive evidence relied on by the HCPC to prove any of the particulars. The evidence related primarily to the background and circumstances prior to the matters set out in the Allegation. Further, there was no suggestion from the Registrant that any of the matters in Colleague A’s statement were not accurate or that there was any animosity between Colleague A and the Registrant.
Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private
18. Mr Bridges made an application for part of the case to be heard in private for the protection of the Registrant’s private life.

19. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Hearings in private”.

20. The Panel decided that references to the details of the Registrant’s health should be heard in private to protect the Registrant’s private life. The remainder of the hearing should be heard in public.

Further amendments to the Allegation
21. During its deliberations the Panel identified a further amendment which might be made to the Allegation and invited Mr Bridges to make an application. Mr Bridges proposed that the Panel should delete the words which form the preamble to the Allegation “Whilst registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) as a Physiotherapist” because this was an error in the drafting of the Allegation. The Registrant was not registered with the HCPC during the time period covered by the Allegation.

22. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She referred the Panel to the guidance on late amendments in the case of PSA v Doree [2017] EWCA 319 which confirms that Panels are entitled to make amendments to the Allegation to avoid “undercharging”. Those amendments can be made at a late stage even after the evidence has been heard and findings of fact have been made. The Legal Assessor confirmed that the question of fairness to the Registrant must be considered, particularly when the Registrant has not had notice of the proposed amendment.

23. The Panel decided to exercise its discretion and amend the Allegation to delete the preamble to the Allegation. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was not misled by the error and that the amendment did not create unfairness for her. The amendment did not change the substance or the seriousness of the Allegation.

24. During its deliberations the Panel also identified that a further amendment was appropriate. This was an amendment to delete the word “disciplinary” from particular 3(a). The AHPRA did not describe the investigation into the Registrant’s health as a “disciplinary” investigation and the word “disciplinary” was not used in the witness evidence.

25. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel has the discretion to make amendments which it has identified even at the late stage of its deliberations, but that it must consider whether the amendment created unfairness for the Registrant. In the Panel’s view the proposed amendment did not create any unfairness. It did not change the substance or the gravity of the particular and it was consistent with the witness evidence which had been served on the Registrant.

Background
26. In or around August 2015, the Registrant was employed as a Physiotherapist at Business A based in Queensland, Australia. In January 2016 the Registrant returned to work following a period of absence from work due to ill health. On 13 January 2016, the Registrant contacted the Office of Health Ombudsman (the OHO) in Australia to report a recent diagnosis. On 25 January 2016, Dr JB also made a notification to the OHO in respect of the Registrant. Dr JB advised that the Registrant had been diagnosed with a health condition.
27. On 5 February 2016, the referrals were forwarded to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) to investigate on behalf of the Physiotherapy Board of Australia (the Board).

28. In March 2016, Dr JB was asked by AHPRA to provide his professional opinion as to whether the Registrant’s condition would amount to an impairment that may detrimentally affect her ability to practise the profession. Dr JB confirmed that he believed the Registrant’s condition would affect her ability to practise as a Physiotherapist. Attempts were made by AHPRA to contact the Registrant by email and phone, but she did not engage and AHPRA considered that she may have returned to her home country of Ireland.

29. On 5 April 2016, the Registrant submitted an application to the HCPC for readmission to the register.

30. On 3 August 2016, the Board imposed conditions on the Registrant’s ability to practise as a Physiotherapist within Australia.

31. On 5 September 2017, the AHPRA informed the HCPC that there were restrictions on the Registrant’s registration.

32. On 13 September, the AHPRA provided the HCPC with a copy of their decision dated 3 August 2016 which states the reasons for their decision to impose restrictions on the Registrant’s registration. They determined that the Registrant had or may have had a physical or mental impairment which affects or is likely to affect the Registrant’s capacity to practice her profession as a Physiotherapist.

Decision on Facts
33. The Panel carefully read the HCPC bundle of exhibits.

34. The Panel heard evidence from MH by telephone. His evidence introduced the documentary evidence and explained the procedures of the AHPRA. The Panel found that MH was a credible and knowledgeable witness.

35. The Panel admitted the statement of Colleague A as hearsay evidence. Colleague A’s evidence provided background evidence, but it was not central to the Panel’s determination on the facts.

36. The Panel read the witness statement of AM, an HCPC Registration Manager. The Registrant was advised in the HCPC case summary that AM would not be called to give evidence. She did not raise any objection and has not provided any challenge to AM’s evidence. The Panel accepted AM’s evidence as a fair description of the HCPC process for applying for re-registration and the relevant guidance.

37. The Registrant did not provide the Panel with documentary evidence or written submissions.

Particular 1 – found proved
38. The Panel found Particular 1 proved by the documentary evidence and the evidence of MH.

39. The Panel was provided with the minutes of the Board for 3 August 2016. The Board determined that the Registrant “has or may have an impairment” and that conditions were imposed that the Registrant “must not practise as a Physiotherapist”. The minutes set out reasons for the decision of the Board and provided that the Registrant would be informed of the decision.

Particular 2 – found proved
40. The Panel found Particular 2 proved by the documentary evidence, the evidence of MH, and the statement of AM.

41. The Panel found that on 4 April 2016 the Registrant had a health condition that would impair her fitness to practise. The Registrant’s self-referral to the OHO and the notification from Dr JB were both in January 2016. Both indicated a similar diagnosis of a health condition. Dr JB’s referral provided further information about the condition.

42. The impact of the health condition on the Registrant’s fitness to practise is further confirmed by the information provided by Dr JB on 2 March 2016.

43. There was only a short gap in time of less than a month between Dr JB’s report on 2 March 2016 and the Registrant’s completion of the health declaration to the HCPC on 4 April 2016. The Panel inferred from all the evidence relating to the Registrant’s health that the health condition would impair her practice as at 4 April 2016.

44. The health declaration on the HCPC readmission application for registration form included the question: “Do you have any physical or mental health condition that would impair your fitness to practise the profession to which your application relates”. The Registrant did not tick the box on the form and therefore failed to declare her health condition.

Particular 3(a) – found proved
45. The Panel found Particular 3(a) proved both in relation to the readmission form and in relation to subsequent correspondence. It was proved by the documentary evidence, the evidence of PH, and the statement of AM.

46. By early March 2016 AHPRA had commenced its investigation. Dr JB provided his medical report to AHPRA on 2 March 2016. The evidence demonstrated a pattern of the Registrant’s non engagement with the AHPRA despite different methods of communication being attempted. The AHPRA refers to “numerous attempts” made to contact the Registrant by “mail, email, and phone”. Given that multiple methods of communication with the Registrant were attempted, the Panel inferred that the Registrant knew of the investigation in Australia, but decided not to participate.

47. The Registrant did not declare in her readmission form on 4 April 2016 that she was subject to any investigation by AHPRA. This was a “failure” to the extent that there was no written declaration by the Registrant of any investigation. However, there was nothing on the HCPC readmission form or in the guidance that stated that the Registrant should declare that she was subject to an investigation. The question on the application form is: “Have you been disciplined by a professional or regulatory body or your employer?”. On 4 April 2016 the Registrant had not been “disciplined”. The lack of written guidance from the HCPC on this matter was confirmed by the statement of AM. He described that this “is a bit of a grey area”.

48. There was no correspondence from the Registrant to the HCPC between 4 April 2016 and 5 May 2017 advising the HCPC about the investigation by AHPRA. The investigation by the AHPRA first came to the attention of the HCPC on 5 September 2017.

Particular 3(b) found proved
49. The Panel found Particular 3(b) proved in relation to subsequent correspondence in relation to the period of time from 3 August 2016 by the documentary evidence, the evidence of PH, and the statement of AM.

50. There was no correspondence from the Registrant to the HCPC between 4 April 2016 and 5 May 2017 advising the HCPC that she was subject to any order. The HCPC was informed about the order by the AHPRA on 5 September 2017.

Particular 4 – found proved in relation to Particulars 2 and 3(b)
51. In considering Particular 4, the Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. Applying the guidance from the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos, it first considered the Registrant’s state of mind. Having considered the Registrant’s knowledge, understanding, and beliefs, it applied an objective test, and considered whether the Registrant’s conduct was honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

52. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s failure to declare a health condition when she completed the readmission form on 4 April 2016 was dishonest. The Panel noted that the events in January 2016 would have been fresh in the Registrant’s mind when she completed the form. She was fully aware of her diagnosis and of the connection between her health and her work as a Physiotherapist because she herself made a declaration to the OHO on 13 January stating: “I wish to inform the board of a recent diagnosis”.

53. The Registrant was also aware of the opinion of Dr JB that he believed that the Registrant should make a declaration of her health condition to her regulator. In his referral dated 25 January 2016 Dr JB stated: “she was asked to report her condition to AHPRA…”

54. The Panel inferred that the Registrant was aware of efforts made by AHPRA in February and March 2016 to contact her and had chosen not to engage in the process. On 6 April 2016, the Board met to consider the referrals by the Registrant and Dr JB. It noted the following: “numerous attempts have been made to contact the practitioner by AHPRA staff including email and phone. To date the practitioner has not engaged with AHPRA staff and it is considered that the practitioner may have returned to her home country of Ireland”.

55. The Registrant completed the HCPC application with attention to the information required including accurate information about her last employment. She signed the declarations confirming that the information was accurate.

56. The Panel concluded from this evidence that the Registrant knew that she had a health condition that would impair her fitness to practice. She understood the question on the HCPC form that asked her whether she had a health condition that would impair her fitness to practise. She chose not to declare the information to the HCPC.

57. Having considered the Registrant’s state of mind, the Panel decided that the Registrant’s conduct was dishonest, applying the standards of ordinary reasonable people. The Registrant knowingly provided inaccurate information on the HCPC readmission form.

58. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 3(a) was dishonest. The Panel noted AM’s statement and particularly that there is nothing in HCPC guidance to state that Registrants should declare that they are subject to an investigation by another Regulator. The readmission form specifically requires Registrants to state whether they have been disciplined, not whether they are subject to an investigation.

59. Although the Registrant knew that she was subject to the AHPRA investigation the Panel did not conclude that the Registrant knew that she was under an obligation to disclose that investigation to the HCPC. The Registrant’s conduct in Particular 3(a) was therefore not dishonest, applying the standards of ordinary reasonable people.

60. The Panel inferred from the evidence that between 3 August 2016 and 5 May 2017 the Registrant became aware that she was subject to a disciplinary order imposing conditions of practise by the AHPRA. The Registrant was aware of the ongoing AHPRA investigation, but chose not to participate.

61. The Registrant had read and understood the standards that are required of HCPC Registrants including Standard 9.5 which states: “You must tell us as soon as possible if…you have had any restriction placed on your practice”. On 4 April 2016 as part of her readmission application the Registrant signed a declaration stating: “I declare that I have read, understood and will comply with the HCPC’s standards of conduct, performance and ethics”.

62. The Registrant knew and understood the requirement to declare the disciplinary order made by the AHPRA, but did not do so. This is dishonest conduct, applying the standards of ordinary reasonable people.

63. The Panel therefore found Particular 4 partly proved because the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 2 and Particular 3(b) was dishonest.

Decision on Grounds
64. The decision in Particular 1 is a determination within the meaning of Article 22(1)(a)(v) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001. The AHPRA is a licensing body.

65. The question of whether the facts constitute misconduct is for the judgment of the Panel and there is no burden or standard of proof.

66. There is no statutory definition of misconduct, but the Panel had regard to the guidance of Lord Clyde in Roylance v GMC (No 2) 1 AC 311: “Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a practitioner in the particular circumstances…”. The conduct must be serious in that it falls well below the standards.

67. In the Panel’s judgment, the Registrant’s failures to declare her health condition and the disciplinary order made by the AHPRA were serious failures. The consequence of the Registrant’s failure to declare was that the HCPC was not able to investigate matters which had the potential to put patients at risk of harm. In his report to the AHPRA dated 2 March 2016, Dr JB referred to the Registrant’s “questionable compliance to medication” and to the potential consequences putting “her and her clients in a risky situation”. The HCPC was therefore not able to take action to assess and manage the risks to patients.

68. At the outset of the hearing the Legal Assessor, in fairness to the Registrant, drew to the Panel’s attention the fact that Colleague A gave the HCPC information about the Registrant’s health and the impact on patients on 27 September 2016. This was prior to the date the Registrant was admitted to the Register in May 2017. The Registrant had provided the HCPC with contact details for Colleague A.

69. Nevertheless, the Panel took the view that the Registrant’s failure to declare both her health and the disciplinary decision of the AHPRA was serious and would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners. The failure to declare the investigation by the AHPRA, although not a dishonest act, was a significant falling short of the expected standards. The Registrant’s actions involved the potential for harm to herself and to patients. The Registrant was required to be open with her Regulator and provide information, even if that was detrimental to her own interests. The Registrant was also dishonest which is particularly serious for all health professionals. She chose not to declare information which may have had an impact on the progress of her application for readmission to the register.

70. The Panel considered the HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics (2016). The Panel considered that the Registrants actions were a breach of standards 6.2, 6.3, 9.1 and 9.5 and the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapists (2013) standards 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2.

71. In the Panel’s judgment the Registrant’s conduct fell well below the required standards and was sufficiently serious to constitute misconduct.
Decision on Impairment 
72. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Finding that Fitness to Practice is Impaired”. The Panel considered the Registrant’s fitness to practise at today’s date.

73. In January 2018, the Registrant participated in a health assessment for the HCPC with Dr C. The Panel has no information about the Registrant’s current health or her circumstances.

74. The Panel had no evidence of any level of insight by the Registrant into the regulatory significance of the decision of the AHPRA, her failures to make declarations to the HCPC, or her dishonesty, either at the time of the events or at today’s date. There was also no evidence that the Registrant has taken any remedial action.

75. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition of misconduct was high.

76. The Panel considered the test for fitness to practise suggested by Dame Janet Smith in the fifth Shipman report and decided that all the questions were engaged. The Registrant has in the past acted and is liable in the future to act so as to put patients at risk of harm. She has in the past brought and is liable in the future to bring the physiotherapy profession into disrepute. She has in the past breached and is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession. She has in the past acted dishonesty and is liable to act dishonestly in the future.

77. The Panel also considered the wider public interest considerations including the need to maintain confidence in the profession and to uphold standards of conduct and behaviour. The Registrant’s dishonest action involves a failure to declare matters as part of the readmission process and as part of the ongoing requirement to report findings made by other Regulators. Members of the public place their confidence in the register and any dishonesty with regard to it undermines public confidence both in the register and in the profession. Members of the public would therefore expect the Panel to take action and to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

78. A finding of current impairment is also required to uphold standards of conduct and behaviour. The standards would not be upheld if the Panel did not conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, given the findings made by the Panel about the Registrant’s departure from the required standards.

79. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the personal component and the public component.

Decision on Sanction
80. In considering which, if any, sanction to impose the Panel had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (SP) and the advice of the Legal Assessor.

81. The Panel reminded itself that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to punish the practitioner, but to protect the public and the wider public interest. The Panel ensured that it acted proportionately, and in particular it sought to balance the interests of the public with those of the Registrant, and impose the sanction which was the least restrictive in the circumstances commensurate with its duty of protection.

82. The Panel decided that the aggravating features were:
• the Registrant breached the trust placed in her;
• the risk of repetition;
• the potential for patient harm;
• the absence of evidence of insight, remorse or regret;
• the potential impact on the integrity and reliability of the HCPC register.

83. The Panel decided that the mitigating features were:
• the absence of a fitness to practise history since her registration in 2009;
• the Registrant’s health condition.

84. The Panel considered the guidance in the SP on dishonesty and decided that the Registrant’s conduct did fall into the category of serious dishonesty. The dishonesty had the potential to impact on patient safety and it occurred over an extended period of time because the Registrant did not rectify the position by reporting the order made by the AHPRA at any time from April 2016 to 5 May 2017.

85. The Panel considered the option of taking no action, but decided that the misconduct was too serious and that this option would not address the risk of repetition the Panel has identified.

86. The Panel next considered a Caution Order. The Panel did not consider that the guidance in the SP for Caution Orders applied. The conduct was not isolated or minor and there was a risk of repetition. A Caution Order would also not be sufficient to address the wider public interest considerations because of the gravity of the misconduct, involving dishonesty.

87. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel considered that conditions could not be formulated to address the Registrant’s dishonesty. Further, the Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC and the Panel cannot have confidence that she would comply with conditions of practice. A Conditions of Practice Order would also be insufficient to mark the gravity of the Registrant’s misconduct.

88. The Panel next considered the option of a Suspension Order. A Suspension Order would guard against the risk of repetition of dishonesty in professional practice while the Registrant was suspended.

89. The Panel carefully evaluated the mitigating circumstances it had identified. The Panel did not give weight to the absence of fitness to practice history. This was a minor factor when weighed against the seriousness of the misconduct.

90. The Panel considered carefully whether the evidence relating to the Registrant’s health indicated that a Suspension Order was the appropriate sanction. Despite this, there has been very little engagement with the HCPC.

91. Having carefully considered the available evidence, the Panel’s judgment was that only limited weight could be given to the Registrant’s health as a mitigating factor. The Registrant has only engaged in a limited way to date. Further, the evidence does not indicate that there is a real prospect that the Registrant would engage with the HCPC process in the future as there has been a pattern of non-engagement both with the AHPRA and with the HCPC since 2016.

92. The Panel noted that the circumstances set out guidance in the SP for a Suspension Order did not apply. There is no evidence that the Registrant has insight and therefore there is a high risk of repetition.

93. The Panel also considered whether a Suspension Order was a sufficiently severe sanction to act as a deterrent effect to other Registrants and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The dishonesty involved the integrity of the HCPC Register which directly involves the public interest and trust in the profession. In these circumstances, the Panel considered that a Suspension Order would not be sufficient.

94. The Panel considered that the guidance in the SP for a Striking Off Order applied. The case involves serious dishonesty and there is nothing to reassure the Panel that the dishonesty will not be repeated, there has been a lack of engagement in the process by the Registrant, and a lack of insight. The Panel decided that a Striking Off Order is appropriate and proportionate. A Striking-Off Order would mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct, act as a deterrent to other Registrants, and maintain the reputation of the profession.

95. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account the Registrant’s financial and reputational interests, but decided that they were outweighed by the need to protect the public and by the wider public interest considerations. The Panel decided that the appropriate and proportionate Order was a Striking Off Order.

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Miss Trina McCallion from the Register on the date this order comes into effect

Interim Order Application
Mr Bridges submitted that the Panel should hear his application for an Interim Suspension Order in the absence of the Registrant.

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

The Panel decided that it was fair and appropriate to proceed and hear the application in the absence of the Registrant. The Registrant was advised in the Notice of Hearing dated 21 November 2019 that an application for an interim order might be made. There was nothing to indicate that the Registrant wished to make submissions in relation to this application, and it was in the public interest to proceed.

Mr Bridges made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for the maximum period of 18 months to cover the 28 day appeal period and the time that might be required to conclude any appeal.

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

The Panel decided that an interim order was necessary for the protection of the public. The Panel has identified a risk of repetition and a potential risk to the public which is ongoing. The Panel also considered that an interim order was otherwise in the public interest. A member of the public would be shocked or troubled to learn that there was no interim restriction in place.

The Panel did not consider that the risks in this case could be addressed by an Interim Conditions of Practice Order because of its earlier conclusions that conditions would not be sufficient to protect the public or the public interest.

The Panel decided to make an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months, the maximum duration, to allow sufficient time for the disposal of any appeal.

Interim Order
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension under Article 31(2) of the Health 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 Trina McCallion