Mr Joe Davies
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.
By reason of your physical and/or mental health as set out in Schedule A, your fitness to practise as a paramedic is impaired.
Application for Hearing to be considered by Health Committee
1. The Panel was asked to consider the provisions of Rule 4 of the HCPC’s (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as follows:
Referral to Conduct and Competence Committee
4.—(1) Where it appears to the Committee that an allegation which it is considering would be better dealt with by the Conduct and Competence Committee, the Committee may refer the allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee for consideration and shall suspend its consideration of the allegation.
(2) If, following a referral under this rule, the Conduct and Competence Committee certifies to the Committee that the fitness to practise of the registrant is not impaired by reason of misconduct, lack of competence or any ground specified in sub-paragraph (iii) or (v) of article 22(1)(a) of the Order the Committee shall resume and conclude its consideration of the allegation.
(3) If, following a referral under this rule, the Conduct and Competence Committee certifies to the Committee that it has dealt with the allegation and that no further action by the Committee is required in relation to the allegation the Committee shall take no further action in relation to the allegation.
2. Mr Millin submitted that, in light of the Panel having its remit as a Health Committee Panel, and in light of the prevalence of the evidence being health-related, the HCPC would like to proceed with the hearing as a Health hearing only, as this Panel had no jurisdiction to make any decisions on matters relating to Misconduct. If the Panel was to agree with his submission, the HCPC would then be free to bring back the Caution/Misconduct later before a Conduct and Competence Committee to discontinue it, if the Health matters are found proved by this Panel.
3. The Panel considered that a very large part of the evidence before it related to the Registrant’s health, including an extensive report from Dr Grewal, the medical expert in the case and who was going to be called to give evidence. Hence, in the Panel’s judgement, the matter relating to the Caution, as a Misconduct allegation, had become a subsidiary matter, but one that would not necessarily be diminished by any Health-related findings, but, rather, where the information in relation to the Registrant’s health at the time would put into context the fact of the Caution.
4. Therefore, the Panel would be hearing this case as a Health Committee Panel and, thus, this would be a Health case only.
Application to Amend Allegation
5. The Panel accepted the proposed amendment to the Health allegation, as it properly and more accurately reflected the full nature of the Registrant’s ill health, as evidenced by all the medical evidence in the HCPC bundle. In addition, the Registrant did not object to the proposed amendment. Therefore, the Panel determined that the amendment should be permitted as fair and not prejudicial to the Registrant.
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Joe Davies for a period of 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect.
Application for Interim Order
1. The Panel heard the submission of Mr Millin for an Interim Order to be imposed to cover the appeal period. It took account of the HCPTS’s Practice Note on Interim Orders and it accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice.
2. The Panel determined that the reasons given for the substantive decisions made by it are such as to present a real risk of significant harm to health, safety and wellbeing of the public if an Interim Order was not to be imposed. This would cover the appeal notice period of 28 days, as well as a longer period, if the appeal was to be taken up by the Registrant. The Panel also considered that the public would expect an Interim Order to be imposed so as to provide that level of protection and also a recognition of the seriousness of the case.
3. The Panel determined that it must follow the same type of Interim Order as reflected in the substantive sanction to be consistent and proportionate. Hence, an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would be inconsistent and disproportionate.
4. For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the most proportionate and appropriate Order is that of an Interim Suspension Order being necessary on the grounds of public protection, otherwise in the wider public interest and in the Registrant’s own interests under Article 31(1) and (2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel also considered the period of 18 months to be the most suitable so as to cover any appeal period because appeals can often take a considerable period of time to be finalised.
The Panel makes an Interim Order of Suspension under Article 31(1) and (2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public, being otherwise in the public interest and in the Registrant’s own interests.
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 Mr Joe Davies
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|26/10/2020||Health Committee||Final Hearing||Suspended|