Mr Ricardo Butron Marceliano

Profession: Arts therapist

Registration Number: AS13954

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 10/09/2020 End: 17:00 10/09/2020

Location: Virtual - Video Conference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Conditions of Practice

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

While registered as an Arts Therapist with the Health and Care Professions Council and during your employment with Cambridge School:


1. On 3 June 2017; you were arrested, and charged, for a Sexual Assault, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and:
    a. You did not disclose to the HCPC until 3 May 2018 that you were charged with this offence.
    b. Did not disclose to the HCPC until 3 May 2018 that you had been suspended by your 
        employer.

2. Your actions at paragraphs 1a) and/or 1b) were dishonest.

3. Your actions at paragraphs 1 – 2 amount to misconduct.

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

Finding

Preliminary matters
Proof of Service
1. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing had been sent in a letter, by email on 20 May 2020.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that the email to the Registrant confirmed, in accordance with government guidance on containing the COVID-19 pandemic, that the HCPC has decided to suspend all public hearings to protect the health and safety of its registrants and stakeholders. However, to ensure that that the HCPC can continue to perform its statutory duties of protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the register, it arranged for this hearing to be heard remotely via video conference. The date and time of the review hearing was confirmed in the Notice of Hearing, and the Registrant was offered the opportunity to participate. Although the Registrant did not respond to the request to confirm whether he would be attending the hearing, the link to the video conference was sent to him on the morning of the hearing.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (as amended) and that the Registrant had been given a reasonable opportunity to participate.

Proceeding in Absence
4. Miss Sheridan made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant’s absence, as permitted by Rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Rules 2003 (as amended).

5. Miss Sheridan, in support of her application, set out in chronological order the communication between the HCPC and the Registrant. The information she provided confirmed that the Registrant had engaged with the HCPC’s investigatory proceedings which concluded when a panel of the Investigating Committee determined on 13 November 2019, that there was a case for the Registrant to answer and referred him to the Case Preparation and Conclusion Team. Thereafter, the HCPC sent emails to the Registrant in February 2020, inviting him to confirm whether he was willing to accept receipt of the hearing bundle by email. As there was no response the hearing bundle was sent by special delivery on 5 March 2020, which was returned in April 2020 marked ‘Not called for.’ Further emails were sent by the HCPC to the Registrant in April 2020. On 23 April 2020, the Registrant sent an email to the HCPC in which he verified his email address. He apologised for his delayed response stating, ‘Due to the circumstances we are facing right now with the Covid-19 and personal/family matters and self isolation connecting this crisis, checking emails has been of least of my concern (sic)’. In response to a further email from the HCPC sent on 30 April 2020, the Registrant confirmed on the same date that he was willing to accept service of the hearing bundle by email. The hearing bundle was sent to him on 30 April 2020. Miss Sheridan drew to the Panel’s attention the attendance note dated 2 July 2020, which confirmed that a scheduling officer telephoned the Registrant and left a voicemail message for him inviting him to attend the video conference hearing. There was no response to the voicemail and no response to the follow up email which was sent to the Registrant on 3 July 2020. Miss Sheridan confirmed that the last communication from the Registrant was on 30 April 2020.

6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPC Practice Note “Proceeding in Absence”.

7. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for the following reasons:

a) The Panel took the view that the HCPC had made reasonable and sufficient efforts to provide the Registrant with the opportunity to participate in these proceedings. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s engagement with the regulatory process since his referral to the Case Preparation and Conclusion Team has been sporadic. In these circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the Registrant’s non-attendance was voluntary and therefore a deliberate waiver of his right to participate in these proceedings by video-conference.

b) There has been no application to adjourn and no indication from the Registrant that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date and therefore re-listing the substantive hearing would serve no useful purpose.

c) The Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions. However, the Panel concluded that this potential disadvantage was outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that the hearing is heard and concluded expeditiously.

Application to Amend the Allegation
8. At the outset of the hearing Miss Sheridan made an application for the Allegation to be amended as follows:

• The date in Particular 1(a) to be amended to 3 May 2018;

• Insertion of a new Particular 1(b) to reflect the alleged non-disclosure to the HCPC that he had been suspended by his employer.

• Deletion of the original Particular 2 and insertion of a new Particular 2 alleging dishonesty in relation to Particulars 1(a) and 1(b).

• Ms Sheridan’s application included a request to specify within the Allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. Although some documentation to the Registrant included this element of the Allegation it was omitted from one communication. In these circumstances Ms Sheridan put it on record for the Panel to consider.

• Formatting amendments in the event that substantive amendment application was granted.

9. The Registrant was put on notice of the majority of the proposed amendments in a letter dated 5 February 2020.

10. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised the Panel that early notice and minor changes are less likely to cause injustice than late notice and substantial alterations that heighten the seriousness of the Allegation.

11. The Panel was satisfied that the Allegation should be amended as requested as the proposed amendments:

• provided helpful clarification;

• avoided ambiguity;

• did not significantly alter the substance or meaning of the Allegation or significantly widen the scope of the HCPC’s case as originally drafted. 

12. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the amendments would cause no injustice to the Registrant as they were minor in nature and more accurately reflected the HCPC’s case.

Background
13. The Registrant registered with the HCPC as an Art Therapist on 15 November 2010.

14. The Registrant was employed as an Art Therapist by the Cambridge School from 20 April 2016 until 15 October 2019. 

15. On 1 May 2018, the HCPC received a referral from the Cambridge School. The referral stated that the Registrant had been arrested on 3 June 2017, for sexual assault of a male contrary to Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

16. On 3 May 2018, the Registrant emailed the HCPC. In his email he stated:

‘I am emailing you regarding the process of my current status, as I am hoping to return to work as soon as possible. I was facing a false alleged accusation via the law system, in which I took it to court I was pleaded not guilty and won all favours to my side- December 2017. My current employee have been a beacon of light in support of this and equally want me to return to work. They have recently informed me due to procedures they have disclosed the matter as I was suspended on the grounds of the outcome etc to HCPC, they did this recently (April / March 2018). If you can kindly inform the current process etc as I am anticipating my return to work (sic)’.

Panel’s Approach
17. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything, and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved, if the Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities.

18. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the documentary evidence contained within the hearing bundle as well as the oral submissions made by Miss Sheridan.

19. The Panel accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that following the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 the test for dishonesty is an objective test only. The Panel first had to determine the Registrant’s actual knowledge or belief and then determine whether his act or omission was, on the balance of probabilities, dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.

Decision on Facts
Particular 1(a) – Found Proved
‘You did not disclose to the HCPC until 3 May 2018 that you had been arrested and charged…’

20. The Panel was provided with a witness statement from a Case Manager - Ms Aycan Yildiz. She confirmed, having reviewed the HCPC’s systems, that the Registrant’s email dated 3 May 2018, was the only correspondence received from him with regard to the criminal charge.

21. The Panel accepted the evidence of Ms Yildiz. The Panel noted that section 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (January 2016) states that a Registrant:
"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."

22. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was obliged to inform the HCPC that he had been charged with a criminal offence, but he did not do so until 3 May 2018.

23. Accordingly, Particular 1(a) was found proved.

Particular 1(b) – Found Proved
‘Did not disclose to the HCPC until 3 May 2018 that you had been suspended by your employer…’

24. The Panel took into account the witness statement of Ms Yildiz. The Panel noted that Section 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics also states that a Registrant:

“Must tell us as soon as possible if...you have had any restriction placed on your practice, or been suspended or dismissed by an employer, because of concerns about your conduct or competence."

25. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was obliged to inform the HCPC that he had been suspended by his employer, but he did not do so until 3 May 2018. 

26. Accordingly, Particular 1(b) was found proved.

Particular 2 – Dishonesty (in relation to Particulars 1(a) and 1(b)) - Found Not Proved
27. The Panel, having found Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) proved, went on to consider the issue of dishonesty. 

28. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant acted dishonestly in that he knew he was required to inform the HCPC when he was charged with a criminal offence, and when he was suspended by his employer, but intentionally failed to do so. 

29. The Panel noted that, the application for admission onto the HCPC register, requires registrants to declare that they have read, understood, and will comply with the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. The purpose is to ensure that all registrants are aware of their duties which includes the obligation to disclose a police charge or suspension by their employer to the HCPC as soon as possible, and that they agree to comply with this duty as a condition of their registration.

30. The Registrant was under an obligation to notify the HCPC of the criminal charge and his suspension from work. The Panel accepted that the Registrant knew that he had been charged and that he had been suspended and if he had considered the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics he could have been in no doubt as to his obligation to inform the HCPC of these events. However, although the Registrant ought to have been aware of his professional obligations to self-report the charge and suspension, there was no evidence before the Panel that he was consciously aware of the obligation and deliberately chose to disregard it. The Panel noted that the Registrant appeared to be traumatised by the criminal allegation and that this had adversely affected his health. The Panel also noted that the Registrant appeared to find it difficult to engage with the regulatory process. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s omissions were more likely to be careless failures rather than dishonest omissions.

31. The Panel concluded that the HCPC had adduced insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Registrant knew that he was required to disclose his charge and suspension to the HCPC and deliberately chose not to.

32. Accordingly, Particular 2 was found not proved.

Decision on Grounds
Panel’s Approach
33. In view of the Panel’s factual findings the Panel went on to consider the issue of grounds but only in relation to the particulars that were found proved. No further consideration was given to the Particular 2 which was not found proved. The Panel was aware that determining the issue of misconduct is a matter of judgement; there is no standard of proof.

34. The Panel took into account the submissions of Miss Sheridan and accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice.

35. The Panel was aware that breach of the standards alone does not necessarily constitute misconduct and that negligence may amount to misconduct if it is sufficiently serious. The Panel also bore in mind that in the Privy Council case of Roylance v GMC (No.2) [2000] 1 AC 311 it was stated that:

“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 misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the misconduct to the profession ... Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious.”

Misconduct
36. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s omissions demonstrate a careless failure to adhere to the high standards expected of a HCPC registered practitioner.

37. The Registrant has a professional duty to comply with Section 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. The Panel noted that there was no evidence of actual harm, that the Registrant was acquitted at trial and that he appears to have taken the view that it was a completely false allegation which should never have been made. However, these features are irrelevant in the circumstances of this case. The Registrant’s failure to notify the HCPC, that he had been charged with a criminal offence and to disclose that he had been suspended by his employer, deprived the HCPC of the opportunity to perform its primary function, which is to protect the public. As a consequence of the Registrant’s omissions the HCPC was unable to assess the risk to the public. The Panel was particularly concerned to note that there was a 10 month delay in the Registrant notifying the HCPC.

38. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s omissions, individually and collectively, fell far below the standards expected of a registered practitioner and was sufficiently serious to be characterised as misconduct.

Decision on Impairment
Panel’s Approach
39. Having found misconduct the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note: “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and the submissions of Miss Sheridan. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

40. In determining current impairment, the Panel had regard to the following aspects of the public interest:

• The ‘personal’ component: the current scope and level of insight, remorse and remedial action taken by the individual registrant; and

• The ‘public’ component: the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

Panel’s Decision
41. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal perspective and then from the wider public perspective.

42. The Panel noted there was no indication that the Registrant fully appreciates the gravity of his failings. The Registrant appears to have insight into the impact the allegation has had on his health and well-being but there was no indication that he has considered the wider implications. In his email dated 23 April 2020, he describes the allegation that had been made against him as ‘buffoonery’ which indicates that he is unable to separate the veracity of the allegation from the impact such an allegation has on his professional standing as a HCPC registrant and on the wider public interest. There was no indication from the Registrant’s correspondence that he had taken the opportunity to reflect on his failings and no assurance that he would behave differently in the future.  The Panel concluded that the scope and level of the Registrant’s insight is poor. Therefore, the Panel took the view that there is an ongoing risk of repetition.

43. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired based on the personal component.

44. In considering the public component the Panel had regard to the important public policy issues which include the need to maintain confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

45. A significant aspect of the public component is upholding proper standards of behaviour. Members of the public would be extremely concerned to learn that an Art Therapist working with children failed to disclose to the HCPC that he had been charged with a sexual offence and had subsequently been suspended from work. The Panel concluded that a finding of no impairment would undermine the duty of the HCPC to declare and uphold the high standards expected of all registered practitioners.

46. In all the circumstances the Panel determined that public trust and confidence in the profession of Art Therapy and public confidence in the HCPC as a professional regulator would be seriously undermined if a finding of impairment is not made.

47. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of both the personal component and the wider public interest. Therefore, the HCPC’s case is well-founded.

The Resumed Hearing on 10 September 2020
Service of Notice
48. The notice of this hearing was sent by email to the Registrant’s email address as it appeared on the register on 11 August 2020. The notice contained the date, time and notification that this hearing would continue to be held virtually.

49. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and is satisfied that notice of today’s 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

50. 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 Sheridan on behalf of the HCPC.

51. Ms Sheridan submitted that the HCPTS has taken all reasonable steps to serve the notice on the Registrant. She 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 last communication from the Registrant was on 30 April 2020. Ms Sheridan reminded the Panel that there was a public interest in this matter being dealt with expeditiously.

52. 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.

53. 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”.

54. 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 a Registrant’s absence.

55. 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 should be aware of the hearing.

56. 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.

57. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account that the Registrant did not engage with this final hearing when it started in July 2020 and there has been no communication from him since this matter was adjourned to today. Hence there is no indication from him that he wishes to engage with these proceedings at this stage, or that he wishes for these matters to be adjourned for whatever reason.

58. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was absent voluntarily. 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 non-engagement of the Registrant. Having weighed the public interest for expedition in cases against the Registrant’s own interest, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Decision on Sanction
Submissions
59. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, the Panel then considered what sanction should be imposed. It heard the submissions of Ms Sheridan on behalf of the Council.

60. Ms Sheridan reminded the Panel of the approach that it should take and that it should have regard to the Sanctions Policy.
Legal Advice
61. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised the Panel that as it has found the matters proved amounted to misconduct, the full range of sanctions is available to the Panel.

62. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that any sanction it imposes must be the least restrictive sanction that is sufficient to protect the public and the public interest. It should take into consideration the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. She reminded the Panel that the purpose of a sanction is not punitive, although it may have that effect. The purpose of a sanction is to protect members of the public and the wider public interest. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel should consider the least restrictive sanction first and moving up the scale of severity only if the sanction being considered is inappropriate. She also reminded the Panel it must apply the principle of proportionality, weighing the Registrant’s interest against the public interest. 

Panel’s consideration and decision
63. The Panel has had regard to all the evidence presented, and to the Council’s Sanctions Policy.

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

65. The Panel then considered whether to make a Caution Order. Notwithstanding the Panel’s finding that it found the Registrant’s misconduct demonstrated a careless failure by him to adhere to the standards expected of him as a registered professional, the Panel was also mindful of its finding that the Registrant’s insight into his misconduct was poor and as such there was a real risk of repetition.  It bore in mind that a Caution Order would not restrict his right to practise. The result of the Registrant’s omission was that the HCPC was not afforded the opportunity to consider whether any interim measures were necessary for the protection of the public and the public interest, which is one of its core functions. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Caution Order would not be sufficient to protect the public from the risk of repetition or, in any event, to satisfy the wider public interest.

66. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel has found that the Registrant has not provided insight into the implications that his misconduct could have on public protection. The correspondence from him that the Panel has seen was focused upon himself and the impact of the allegations made against him upon him. He described the Allegation of the HCPC as ‘buffoonery’, which indicated to the Panel that he did not think that these matters were serious nor had he considered the implications of his omission. The Panel also reminded itself that it had determined that the Registrant’s misconduct was not intentional but rather as a result of his carelessness. Nevertheless, the public interest requires that the Registrant addresses his carelessness and lack of insight in order that the HCPC’s ability to protect the public and the public interest is not compromised. 

67. In the circumstances, the Panel was of the view that a Conditions of Practice Order would satisfy the wider public interest, and that it was both fair and reasonable to afford the Registrant the opportunity to demonstrate insight into his misconduct and its wider ramifications and also his understanding of the standards of conduct, performance and ethics expected of him if he wishes to remain registered with the HCPC.

68. Taking into account all of the above, the Panel concluded that conditions could be formulated which would adequately address the risk posed by the Registrant, and in doing so protect patients and the public during the period they are in force.

69. The Panel has taken into consideration the mitigating factors which include that the Registrant is of good character, his misconduct was an isolated incident and the traumatic effect of the legal proceedings. In all of the circumstances, the Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order was both the appropriate and proportionate sanction. It decided to make a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of twelve months. The Panel considered that this period would be sufficient to allow for any delay in the Registrant being able to find a suitable person to work with on his Personal Development Plan. In any event, the Registrant can request and early review if he considers that he has met the conditions of practice.

70. The Panel went on to consider suspension and decided that this was not an appropriate sanction to be imposed in the light of the Panel’s determination that conditions of practice could be imposed that would allow the Registrant’s to return to safe practise and protect the public and the wider public interest. In coming to this conclusion the Panel considers that whilst the Registrant’s misconduct was serious, it did not reach the threshold that would have made suspension proportionate.

Order

The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 12 months from the date that this Order comes into effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Ricardo Butron Marceliano, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment.

2. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.

3. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
1. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
2. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
3. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).

4. You must work with your Supervisor or any other regulated health professional to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:
1. Knowledge of the HCPC Standards of Performance, Conduct and Ethics
2. Understanding of the HCPC’s role in protecting the public, maintaining confidence in the profession and upholding proper standards.

5. You must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC no later than 14 days prior to any review hearing.

6. You must meet with your Supervisor or any other regulated health professional as often as that person thinks necessary to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.  The frequency of the meetings should be no less than twice before any review hearing.

7. You must allow your Supervisor or any other regulated health professional to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

8. You must send the HCPC any references or testimonials which you would like considered by a review panel no later than 14 days before that review.

9. You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.

Notes

Interim Order Application
The Panel decided that it was appropriate to consider the Interim Order Application in the absence of the Registrant. In reaching this conclusion the Panel took into account that the content of the Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant included the following words, under the heading Interim Orders: “Please note that if the Panel finds the case against you is well founded and imposes a sanction which removes, suspends or restricts your right to practise, it may also impose an interim order on you (under Article 31 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001). An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect.” The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was notified that an Interim Order Application was a possible outcome at this hearing. The Panel remained satisfied that the Registrant had waived his right to be present at the hearing by his failure to engage. The Panel could see no reason to adjourn the hearing in order to allow the Registrant to attend on a later date because there was no indication that he would attend on any other occasion. The Panel took into account the fact that it had identified there to be a continuing risk to the public if the Registrant were allowed to practise without restriction and decided it was clearly in the public interest to consider the Interim Order Application in the absence of the Registrant.

Having heard submissions from Ms Sheridan on behalf of the HCPC and having taken advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel makes an Interim Conditions of Practice Order in the same terms as set out above, for a period of 18 months 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.

Interim Order
The Panel makes an Interim Conditions of Practice Order 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.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Ricardo Butron Marceliano

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
10/09/2020 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice
06/07/2020 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Adjourned part heard