Mr Damian Clark

Preliminary Matters

The hearing to be conducted partially in private

1. Ms Welsh submitted that any references to the health of the Registrant should be received in private. The Registrant supported that submission. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel directed that all references to the health of the Registrant should be received in private, but that otherwise this was a public hearing.

Background taken from the determination of the Substantive Panel

2. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Biomedical Scientist. On 7 January 2020 he sent a self-referral form to the HCPC notifying them that he had been arrested following a road traffic accident that occurred on 25 December 2019. The Registrant engaged with the HCPC and provided updates in respect of the progression of his court case.
3. On 15 January 2020, The Registrant was convicted on his own admission at Liverpool Knowsley & St Helens Magistrates' Court of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol. The legal limit in the UK being 35 micrograms per alcohol in 100 milliliters of breath. The Registrant’s reading was recorded as 115 micrograms of alcohol in 100 milliliters of breath. He was disqualified from driving for 27 months and a community order was imposed. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge and court costs.

The hearing before the Substantive Panel

4. At the outset of the Substantive Hearing, the Registrant informed the Substantive Panel that he admitted the conviction set out at particular 1 of the Allegation. Further, in the course of his oral evidence the Registrant confirmed the conviction.
5. There was before the Substantive Panel a bundle of documents prepared on behalf of the HCPC, containing a Memorandum of Conviction in regard to particular 1 and exhibits including the Registrant’s self-referral form, a witness statement from the police and an Occupational Health report. Also before the Substantive Panel were two character references provided by the Registrant.
6. In reaching its decision on the facts the Substantive Panel considered all the evidence before it, both oral and documentary, together with the submissions of Mr Lloyd [the Case Presenter for the HCPC] and the Registrant. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Substantive Panel was satisfied that this was a true Memorandum of Conviction, and it therefore found the conviction proved. Therefore, the Substantive Panel found particular 1 proved.

Decision of the Substantive Panel on Impairment

7. Having determined the facts as set out above, the Substantive Panel proceeded to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction. It decided that it was. Its reasons, as stated in its determination, are detailed below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Panel have been retained, but are shown in brackets:

(16) The Panel next considered whether Mr Clark’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction.
(17) In reaching its decision the Panel took into account its findings of fact together with the submissions of Mr Lloyd and those of Mr Clark. It had regard to the HCPTS Practise Notes on Conviction and Impairment. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
(18) Mr Clark gave evidence in an apparently candid manner, however when questioned by the Panel it was clear that he had not been completely transparent. In particular, he described going to his GP for help after committing the offence but only on being questioned by the Panel did he say that he had not in fact disclosed the offence to the doctor. The Panel therefore concluded that although Mr Clark may have believed that his evidence was honest, it was not confident that it was a true and complete picture of his history of alcohol consumption since 2014.
(19) In regard to the personal component, the Panel concluded that Mr Clark’s conduct which led to the conviction is remediable and that he has taken some steps to remedy it. This includes some counselling and reading of material regarding self-help in addressing alcohol consumption and biographies of people and their struggles with alcohol to which he can relate. The Panel is aware that Mr Clark self-referred this matter to the HCPC prior to the date of his conviction and also that he pleaded guilty at an early stage. Moreover, he informed senior colleagues that he had been convicted. Furthermore, Mr Clark accepted that although by good fortune those in the car with whom he collided were uninjured, the incident would be likely to have affected them, particularly as it occurred on Christmas Day. He also accepted that his resultant absence on the day of the offence, left his work colleague unsupported during a shift.
(20) Mr Clark told the panel that he now drinks only beer in modest quantities and does so generally only at weekends.
(21) However, the Panel regarded these remedial steps to be insufficient in the light of Mr Clark’s history of excessive drinking since at least 2016. Furthermore, he said that he had relapsed on a number of occasions. This was during the period when he believed that his drinking was under control. Mr Clark’s definition, in his evidence, of his drinking being “under control” was at a time when he was drinking some one and a half bottles of red wine every night. He further agreed that he was probably over the alcohol driving limit when driving to work and when at work. From his evidence it was apparent that this occurred for some five or six years since 2014.
(22) The Panel could not be confident that Mr Clark’s description of his current level of drinking is accurate. In this context it had regard to the fact that when Mr Clark sought help from his GP he did not recount the full story of his drinking history nor the fact of the conviction and that he was over three times the legal driving limit. Further, despite these omissions, Mr Clark told the Panel that the doctor was not concerned about his level of alcohol consumption. He appeared not to understand that the GP’s lack of concern about his drinking was most likely a result of the misleading information he had given her. The Panel found this to be evidence of a significant and concerning lack of insight and self- awareness. In the light of these matters the Panel was not satisfied that it could rely upon Mr Clark’s description of his current level of alcohol consumption.
(23) The Panel has therefore concluded that although Mr Clark has developed some degree of insight, this is extremely limited.
(24) In the light of Mr Clark’s lack of insight the Panel has concluded that although he has expressed genuine remorse and has described his conduct as disgraceful and unacceptable it cannot, having heard of his long history of excessive alcohol consumption and previous relapses, be satisfied that this has been satisfactorily addressed.
(25) Furthermore, the Panel cannot be confident that should another adverse life event occur, Mr Clark has the coping mechanisms to prevent relapse to excessive alcohol consumption with a potential risk to road users and to service users.
(26) In these circumstances, in regard to the personal component, the Panel has determined that Mr Clark’s fitness to practise currently impaired.
(27) Furthermore, a finding of current impairment is also required in the wider public interest. This is necessary to declare and uphold proper professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the profession. The public would expect a Biomedical Scientist to act in accordance with those standards and to justify the trust that the public place in him. Public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator would be undermined were a finding of impairment not made. The Panel has therefore concluded that Mr Clark’s fitness to practise is also impaired in regard to the public component.

Decision of the Substantive Panel on Sanction

8. The Substantive Panel imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 12 months. Its reasons, as stated in its determination, are set out below. For ease of reference, the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Panel have been retained, but are shown in brackets.

(28) In reaching its decision, the Panel considered all the information before it, together with the submissions by Mr Foxsmith [ a case presenter for the HCPC] and those by the Registrant. It had regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (The Policy). It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
(29) Mr Foxsmith made no submissions in regard to particular sanctions. He referred the Panel to the policy and emphasised that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public. He did, however, refer to certain mitigating factors in relation to the degree of insight demonstrated by the Registrant and the remorse he had expressed. Mr Foxsmith referred also to the fact that the Registrant is apparently supported by his management and has indeed continued in his employment.
(30) The Registrant submitted that the appropriate and sufficient sanction would be that of a Caution Order. If the Panel did not accept that submission he proposed a Conditions of Practice Order. His submission in that regard was that Conditions of Practice requiring testing for alcohol consumption would be appropriate and that such testing could be arranged at his place of employment.
(31) The Panel found, as an aggravating factor, the serious nature of the offence.
(32) The Panel found as mitigating factors that:
• The Registrant has expressed some degree of insight, albeit limited, and also remorse.
• There have been no previous regulatory findings against the Registrant.
• There have been no previous convictions for such offences.
• The Registrant made admissions to the matters alleged, pleaded guilty to the offence and self-referred to the HCPC.
• The Registrant remains in his employment and his management is supportive.
• There have been no criticisms of the Registrant’s professional ability and competence.
(33) The Panel first considered whether to take no action but the serious nature of the matters giving rise to the conviction requires a sanction.
(34) Mediation is not appropriate in this type of conviction case.
(35) The Panel considered a Caution Order but determined that as the registrant has displayed only limited insight and there remains a risk of repetition of the matters which gave rise to the conviction, such a sanction would be inadequate; furthermore, a Caution Order would not demonstrate to the public the serious nature of the conviction.
(36) The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. It concluded that there are conditions that would be workable, appropriate and sufficient to protect the public and to indicate the Panel’s concern for the reputation of the Profession. Such an order to be for a period of 12 months. This period is appropriate to protect the public and to enable the Registrant to address his difficulties with alcohol and to satisfy any reviewing Panel that he has done so and that there would be no repetition of the matters which gave rise to his conviction. Furthermore, such an Order would be an opportunity for the Registrant to reflect upon those matters.
(37) The Panel did consider a Suspension Order but concluded that as the Registrant is a competent and respected Practitioner about whom there has been no criticism of his practice, this would be unnecessary and disproportionate. The risk posed by the Registrant can be adequately addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order which also enables the Registrant to continue working.

The Conditions of Practice imposed by the Substantive Panel

9. The Conditions of Practice Order imposed by the Substantive Panel was in the following terms:

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that, for 12 months from the date that this Order takes effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Mr Damian Clark, must comply with the following conditions of practice:
1. You must register with and remain under the care of a general practitioner and inform him or her that you are subject to these conditions.
2. You must inform your general practitioner about these conditions of practice and authorise the doctor to provide the HCPC with information about your health and any treatment you are receiving.
3. You must abstain absolutely from the consumption of alcohol.
4. You must make arrangements for testing for the ingestion of alcohol by hair analysis or by a continuous monitoring tagging system. The testing is to be undertaken by a body independent of your employers. You must provide to the HCPC details of the testing arrangements and forward copies of the results for each preceding month to the HCPC on a monthly basis.
5. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment.
6. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.
7. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions: A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work; B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and C. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).
8. You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions and providing information and reports to the HCPC.

Suggestions made by the Substantive Panel as to what might assist a reviewing panel

10. The Substantive Panel made suggestions as to what might assist a reviewing panel. Those suggestions are set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Panel have been retained, but are shown in brackets;

(38) At any review, the reviewing Panel would doubtless be assisted by a written reflection by the Registrant about:
• how he is coping with the condition to abstain from alcohol;
• what, if any, support or treatment he is receiving or has received to address the difficulties he has had with alcohol and their underlying causes;
• how he feels those difficulties have changed, if at all.
(39). A reviewing Panel may also be assisted by independent evidence from a GP or other professional about his relationship with alcohol.

Events following the substantive hearing

11. This Panel [the Panel] has seen an email from the Registrant to the HCPC dated 24 November 2021, which set out the arrangements that the Registrant was making to comply with the Conditions of Practice Order. That email was in the following terms:

Hi, could this be forwarded to my case manager Saima Iqbal, thanks.
Hi Saima, I would like to say hello and inform you as to the progress I have made so far with regards to the sanctions imposed on my registration following last Fridays (19/11/021) hearing outcome.
I have arranged for a remote consultation with my GP - Dr S. Sapre on the morning of 6th December where I will be informing her of the hearing outcome and what is expected of me from the HCPC. Additionally I have been in contact with a company in Warrington, namely Alpha Biolabs, who specialise among other things in drug and alcohol testing and monitoring.
I have been given a quote for a continuous alcohol monitoring device for a twelve month period and have suggested Friday the 17th of December as a date for this to begin. The device is similar to a tag for ensuring curfew compliance and fits around the ankle. The device takes a reading of ethanol in sweat every 30 minutes 24/7, which is then uplodaed to a base unit kept at home. This data is transmitted to Alpha Biodiagnostics, who in turn can provide that information to yourselves at the HCPC as well as my GP on a monthly basis.
I am ready to give the go ahead for this, but wish to inform you first to ensure this would suit the criteria of the order of restriction placed against my registration. The simple reason for this being a substantial cost having to be met by myself in the region of £5,730 for the duration of the 12 month period.
I would be grateful if you could consider this, and if there are any additional requirements I may have overlooked please do not hesitate to let me know. I would prefare to be contacted in the first instance by e-mail as I am not always in a position to answer calls on my phone right away. My details are as follows:-
I very much look forward to hearing from you in the not too distant future. Kind regards,
Damian.

12. On 16 December 2021 the Registrant was entered onto a Scram program. As described in the Registrant’s email dated 24 November 2021 this was a system for monitoring possible consumption of alcohol by a tag fitted round the ankle. It generated monthly reports. Monthly reports were generated between 7 January 2022 and 17 October 2022, all of which recorded the following “the Scram system detected no alcohol consumption events and no tampering events for the reporting period”
13. In November 2022 the Scram system reported two tamper alerts. The Registrant informed the HCPC of these alerts by email. The Registrant explained the reason for the alerts in an email that he sent to the HCPC. The explanation is as follows:

Explanation of tamper/alcohol alerts
I have not drank any alcohol since November 2021. There have been two recorded tampering and alcohol alerts on the weekend of the 05/11/2022. May I draw your attention to the three e-mail correspondence I had with the alcohol monitoring team at Alpha Biolabs on the 07/11/2022 for your perusal.
My initial reply (second e-mail) following the alcohol/tampering e-mail highlights the physical issues I have had with the bracelet on my ankle. I included photographs of the wounds before and after dressing. This was followed up with a phone call in which I had a lengthy and productive discussion with a representative from the team, during which I stated that I had not knowingly tampered with the alcohol monitoring bracelet, or had I consumed any alcohol during the period stated for the alerts. She went on to say that she intended to place a note on my file, to say she was ending my participation in the program. I replied to her insisting that with just over a month to go, I was determined to see the program through to it’s end date on 11/12/2022. Following on from our phone conversation, a further e-mail (third e-mail) was then returned to me, with a summary of our discussion. I forwarded all three e-mails to my case manager at the HCPC.
With reference to the alerts e-mail, (the first one sent) it states that an alert was triggered at 22:43 on the 04/1/2022 and ended at 01:17 on the 05/11/2022. Prior to this period I was at home, having returned from work at around 18:20. I washed and changed the dressing and spent the evening playing a game on my X-BOX. I went to my bed at approximately 22:30. At no point during the evening did I consume any alcohol. The second alert was triggered at 07:20 ending at 17:31 on 05/11/2022. During this period I got up out of bed, showered. During the course of the day I remained at home until approximately 15:45, after which I left to catch a train at 16:19. I met up with friends in the Albany pub in Kirkdale, (I had a can of coke, no alcohol was consumed by me). We made our way to Goodison Park for the Everton versus Leicester city match. I was sat in my seat for the beginning of the game at 17:30, where I remained for approximately 2 hours. After this I made my way home via the reverse route I took to get to the match. At no point during the day was any alcohol consumed by me.
At the time of writing (09/11/2022), no further alerts have been reported. Alpha Biolabs have given me a reasonable explanation as to why there was a tampering alert. But I am at a loss for words to describe why an alcohol alert was triggered at the exact same time? On both occasions, I was in bed when the alert was triggered. At the time the alerts ended, I was in bed on one occasion and at the match on the other. During the course of my conversation with Alpha Biolabs, I asked weather or not they were able to determine the source of the alcohol. The answer they gave was rather vague, stating that they were only able to say it was present and that it was ‘not a confirmed drinking event and that it does not mean that alcohol has been consumed'. Indeed, I can testify that alcohol certainly was not consumed.
In my defence, may I be so bold as to say, that after nearly 11 months of participation on this monitoring program, there have been no reported alerts for tampering or alcohol. In this period I have spent from my own pocket £3,680 to date, with two further payments totalling £736 still to be made. With just two weeks to go before a review panel hearing, I wish to be clear that I would not be so foolish as to jeopardise my progress by consuming alcohol on not one, but two occasions.
Many thanks, Damian.

14. The Registrant has produced a Reflective Statement, as had been suggested by the Substantive Panel. That statement is in the following terms:

Reflective statement.
I began the Continuous alcohol monitoring program with Alpha Biolabs on the 16/12/2021. This is due to end on the 11/12/2022. To date I have refrained from drinking any alcohol during this period.
At the beginning of the program, a monitoring bracelet was attached to my ankle. The bracelet monitors alcohol in sweat, a reading is taken every 30 minutes throughout the course of the day. The readings are uploaded to a base unit stored at home via wi-fi. This data is subsequently transmitted to Alpha Biolabs where it is collated and a report is prepared. The report is read only and includes a graph of the readings obtained, the number of readings obtained and any instances of tampering with the device. Each month the report is e-mailed to me. Alpha Biolabs are a CPA accredited laboratory for the testing of drugs and alcohol. They have over 15 years of experience working with local authorities, the reports produced are recognised and legally admissible to U.K. Courts.
For the duration of the program I was advised not to go swimming, and told I cannot pass through a metal detector. Until very recently wearing the bracelet was no more than a minor inconvenience. Right up to the weekend of the 05/11/2022, there has been no reported alcohol or tamper events. Two alcohol and tamper events have been recorded over this weekend. I have discussed these events in detail together with the 3 e-mails to which they refer. I have sent these separately to this statement.
The initial financial cost was £1200 for a deposit for the equipment, followed by 12 monthly instalments of £368. Monthly reports have been made available to me, which I have forwarded to my case manager at the HCPC and periodically to my G.P.
I arranged an initial appointment with my G.P. in December 2021 and I explained to him the reason for contacting him. This included discussing my conviction for driving whilst over the prescribed limit for alcohol, my previous issues I had with alcohol, my final hearing with the HCPC, the outcome of that meeting and what was expected of me. Following on from this initial consultation, arrangements were made to have routine bloods done. A further conversation took place approximately two weeks later in which the results of the blood tests were discussed. All of the results were within normal physiological parameters. I have since been in contact with my G.P. via e-mail with SCRAM alcohol monitoring test reports and updated him on my progress so far.
I received my driving licence in October 2022 which is conditional and subject to review in a letter delivered in October 2023. One of the conditions being, that alcohol consumption should not exceed government recommended guidelines of 14 units of alcohol each week. Although the letter did not state specifically how compliance would be monitored, I can only assume this will involve blood tests and consultation with my G.P. at some point between now and October 2023. The application process required a physical examination by a DVLA approved doctor. Height, weight, blood pressure and liver enlargement were all assessed and deemed to be good. A blood sample was also taken for carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT). This test is used to assess alcohol intake over a given period. My test result was consistent with alcohol abstinence. It is my understanding that the DVLA were also in contact with my G.P. as part of the application process.
As much as I appreciate the benefits owning a car can provide, I am also aware the costs required currently far outweigh any meaningful advantages. Since surrendering my driving licence in January 2020, I have been cycling to work, a round trip of approximately 10 miles. In addition to my work commute, I also enjoy cycling in the evenings and weekends. I purchased a second mountain bike which I use leisurely for tracks and trails in March 2020. More recently I purchased a road bike in July 2022, I use this primarily for speed and distance on longer routes. In total I cycle approximately 70 miles per week. I am very much a bike person now.
In addition to cycling, I enjoy drawing and painting. I find this very relaxing, especially so when accompanied to music, classical piano being a particular favourite. I can immerse myself for hours in this manner.
Socially, I am still a season ticket holder at Everton, I attend most home games with a group of six friends who I sit with in the stadium. There are a wider circle of season ticket holder friends who sit elsewhere, three of whom are colleagues. We regularly, but not exclusively meet up beforehand for a few drinks. Outside of football, I have met with friends for food and drinks, this has included a christening, as well as 40th and 18th birthday celebrations. On all social occasions since I began the alcohol monitoring program, I have refrained from drinking alcohol.
Reflecting back to last year when the condition of practice order was made against my registration. I was firstly relieved that I didn’t loose my job. My second thought being that perhaps refraining from alcohol would not be such a bad idea. The choice has been taken away from me, from this point on I will be a non drinker. Bizarre as it may sound, I felt almost relieved and somewhat excited at the prospect. On the day the hearing concluded, I met with friends in Ormskirk in the evening. I had two glasses of coke and no alcohol. On the journey home, I remember contemplating how indifferent it was to if I had drank beer? The total cost of that night out was £4.20, the price of my train ticket. I was pleased and surprised at how easy it was, I was very happy with myself.
Despite having issues with alcohol in the past, I can honestly say I don’t miss it at all. Abstinence certainly hasn’t made going out any less enjoyable and financially it is much cheaper. Mornings following on from a night out are fresher, I have more energy, I can do more. The day is generally more productive, I feel good about this, life in general is very good right now.
Many thanks, Damian.

15. The Panel has seen relevant email correspondence between the Registrant and Alpha Biolabs. The Panel has also seen the Registrant’s email correspondence with the HCPC. In addition the Panel has seen a letter from the DVLA dated 4 October 2022 which stated that the Registrant’s driving licence had been issued, valid for one year. The Panel has also seen an email response from Alpha Biolabs to the Registrant dated 7 November 2022. That response confirmed that “the alert could have been caused by the dressing”.

The Hearing on 5 December 2022 before the Panel [the first review panel]

16. Ms Welsh made submissions. In summary, her submissions were as follows:
• That it was entirely a matter for the Panel to decide whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired. The HCPC did not make any positive submissions on this issue. The Panel should however note that the persuasive burden rests on the Registrant to establish that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired.
• The Panel should consider the extent to which all the concerns identified by the Substantive Panel have been sufficiently addressed.
• In coming to its conclusions the Panel should have regard to the Sanctions Policy published by the HCPC. The Panel should note that the Registrant had been compliant with the Conditions of Practice Order. The HCPC did accept that the risk of repetition was low.

Evidence and submissions by the Registrant

17. The Registrant gave evidence and made oral submissions to the Panel. In summary he said as follows:
• He had been wholly abstinent from alcohol since November 2021. He had not experienced any great difficulty in becoming abstinent and he was pleased with the experience.
• It was his intention to remain wholly abstinent from alcohol in the future.
• He adopted the contents of his Reflective Statement which is set out above. He also repeated the explanation as to the tampering alerts which he had given in his email, which is also set out above.
• He explained the very substantial change in his lifestyle which had occurred in the last 12 months; In particular his emphasis on cycling and his hopes to take up serious running; also camping, hill walking and a resumption of paragliding. All of this would reinforce his decision to remain abstinent from alcohol.
• He described what he had being doing both professionally and domestically throughout 2022. He regarded 2022 as a happy and successful year; remaining abstinent from alcohol had enhanced his sense of success and achievement.
• He reminded the Panel that the decision of the DVLA to return his driving licence was a conditional one. It fell for further consideration in October 2023; before that, he would be the subject of testing to ensure that any consumption of alcohol was under control.
• He described his present work which involved working in biochemistry and was laboratory based. Though his recent work appraisal had implied the prospect of professional advancement, he preferred to remain based in the laboratory. He told the Panel that his employer has been very supportive throughout the process.
• He described the support mechanisms that he had developed; in particular friends, family and ready access to his GP.
• He explained that his GP had mentioned the NHS-run Ambitions centre, which is a help centre based not far from him in Bootle, where he could talk to professionals should he ever feel the need in the future.
• He accepted that his conduct had damaged the reputation of his profession and that he was profoundly sorry for that.
• He did not think that his fitness to practise was presently impaired. He was determined not to let himself down again.

Decision of the Panel on 5 December 2022.

18. The Panel has heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its function was to conduct a comprehensive review in order to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. He advised that in carrying out this assessment, and, if relevant, in determining the appropriate sanction to impose, the Panel must apply the principle of proportionality. He reminded the Panel that in this case all the sanctions were available to the Panel and should be considered in ascending order of restriction. He advised that the Panel should consider the document entitled “Sanctions Policy” [SP] published by the HCPC in March 2019.

The Panel’s decision as regards present impairment

19. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
20. The Panel has had regard to the HCPTS’s Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment and to the SP.
21. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel has carried out a comprehensive review. It has considered the submissions that it has heard and all the material that has been placed before it.
22. The Panel has determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired, on either the personal or the public components. Its reasons are as follows:
• In the opinion of the Panel, the risk of repetition is very low.
• The Panel accepts that the Registrant has been fully compliant with the Conditions of Practice Order. It accepts that the Registrant has been wholly abstinent from alcohol since November 2021. He has been the subject of intensive monitoring. It notes too, that the Registrant has engaged fully with the HCPC and has ensured that the HCPC has been kept informed of all relevant developments.
• The Panel accepts that the Registrant has determined on a substantial change in his lifestyle; in particular, he has put in place a physical regime of cycling and running which will support a decision to remain abstinent from alcohol.
• The Panel also accepted that the Registrant had developed a number of coping strategies, including consultation with family members and his GP which will support his intent to remain wholly abstinent.
• The Panel accepted that the Registrant’s assertion that he was determined to remain wholly abstinent from alcohol was a genuine one. It was supported by the factors identified above.
• The Panel also noted that the decision of the DVLA to return of the Registrant’s driving licence was a conditional one and would probably require evidence that the Registrant’s consumption of alcohol was under control.
• The Panel did not think that the public interest required it to make a finding of present impairment. In the opinion of the Panel, the public interest had been sufficiently addressed by the Conditions of Practice Order imposed by the Substantive Panel.

23. Having decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired the Panel decided to revoke the existing Conditions of Practice Order with immediate effect.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to revoke the Conditions of Practice Order against the registration of Mr Damian Clark with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Damian Clark