Ms Sarah Lundqvist

Skeleton Argument

1. For the purposes of this hearing, the HCPC has submitted and the Panel has read, the bundle as well as a Skeleton Argument dated 16 November 2022 by Mr Benjamin D’Alton, Advocate and Case Manager at Bake Morgan [the Skeleton Argument] and the additional letter from Person A.

Preliminary Matters

Service

2. The Panel first considered the issue of service as the Registrant was not in attendance.

3. The Panel had been provided with the Registrant’s registered postal address in the Service bundle and her e-mail address was specified therein. This was within the Certificate signed by the Registrar dated 2 November 2022.

4. The Panel had sight of the actual email of 2 November 2022 to the Registrant. This confirmed the date and time of the hearing and invited the Registrant to participate.

5. The Panel had sight of the delivery confirmation email. This confirmed delivery had been effected on the Registrant’s email address on the same date it was sent, namely 2 November 2022.

6. The Registrant emailed HCPC on 7 November 2022 confirming she will not attend and specifically referred to today’s hearing.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that good service was effected by notifying a registrant of the time and date of the hearing at her registered email address. There is a duty on a registrant to update the register as soon as their address changes.

8. The Panel was satisfied that fair, proper and reasonable notice of the hearing today had been served on the Registrant, the notice of hearing having been sent to the Registrant at her registered email address with the HCPC on 2 November 2022. The Panel determined that service had been complied with in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules Order of Council 2021 which came into force on 4 March 2021. These rules provide express provision for the HCPC to serve notices via electronic email and hold hearings via audio and video link where necessary. The Panel has therefore found that good service has been effected.

Proceeding in absence

9. Having determined that the Notice of Hearing had been properly served in accordance with the Rules, the Panel went on to consider whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

10. In an email dated 7 November 2022, the Registrant stated as follows:

“I will not be able to attend the hearing on the 9th of December, 2022. Please inform those individuals who are involved in the meeting.”

11. It was also noted that prior to this hearing being listed, the Registrant had emailed the HCPC’s representatives on 11 October 2022 stating as follows:

“Thank you for your response. Please advise that I will not be attending a hearing.”

12. Mr. D’Alton, for the HCPC, submitted that the application before the Panel was a joint agreement between the Registrant and the HCPC, the position advocated by the HCPC is in the Registrant’s interest, the Registrant was made aware of the hearing and her right to attend, but she did not want to attend. He submitted there was no advantage in adjourning to a different date.

13. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had in mind the need to exercise its discretion to proceed with the utmost care and caution. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had received reasonable notice of today’s hearing and had waived her right to appear.

14. In reaching a decision on the application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, the Panel has weighed up the competing factors and has determined that it should exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel determined that it was fair and reasonable and in the interest of justice to proceed in the Registrant’s absence for the following reasons:

• The Panel has found that good service has been effected.

• There was a general public interest for a hearing to take place within a reasonable time.

• The Registrant had not sought to attend and confirmed her intentions within the email of 7 November 2022. The Panel noted that before the hearing was listed, the Registrant had stated on 11 October 2022 that she did not intend to attend a hearing. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily absented herself.

• The Registrant was aware of the hearing and had the opportunity to make representations by email and update the Panel as to her current position. Thus any disadvantage to her had been mitigated.

• The Panel concluded that adjourning would serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the Registrant had not requested an adjournment and that this is a joint application.

• It is in the interests of justice for proceedings to be concluded in a timely manner, so as to avoid unnecessary delay.

15. Any disadvantage to the Registrant is significantly outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that the application is considered expeditiously. The Panel determined, that as the Registrant had decided not to attend this hearing and as the VRA was in accordance with her wishes, it should proceed with this hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

Private

16. Mr D’Alton confirmed he had no instructions to seek for the hearing to be in private, the issues related to a service user (Person A) who is anonymised and would not be referred to within the hearing.

17. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted there was no application for the hearing to be in private and were satisfied with the anonymising measure in place. This was not a hearing where evidence would be heard and there was no reason to detract from the starting principle of an open hearing.

Background

Initial referral

18. The Registrant is a registered Clinical Psychologist. At the relevant time the Registrant was employed by the Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust ('the Trust').

19. On 25 March 2021 the Trust made a referral to the HCPC setting out that a former patient of the Registrant's, Person A, had raised concerns about the nature of her relationship with the Registrant, and alleged breaches of professional boundaries that had occurred. The Trust had received a letter from Person A, dated 6 March 2021 setting out her concerns, which had also been sent to the local safeguarding team.

20. The concerns raised as part of the referral were in effect that:

a) The Relationship between the Registrant and Person A had become less professional over time;

b) When the Registrant was not in employment by the Trust she kept in contact with Person A sharing personal matters;

c) The Registrant used her personal mobile to contact Person A via text and WhatsApp;

d) The Registrant invited Person A to stay at her holiday home in Sicily;

e) The Registrant attended Person A's house on several occasions outside therapy sessions;

f) The Registrant drove Person A in her car without appropriate Covid protection when the journey was unnecessary

g) The Registrant shared confidential details about a European Court of Human Rights case she was working on;

h) The Registrant conducted contact sessions with Person A in inappropriate clothing;

i) The Registrant gave gifts to both Person A and her daughter; and

j) That the Registrant's entries into Person A's medical records did not correspond with what actually happened in sessions

Trust and HCPC investigation

21. Further to the initial referral, the Trust conducted an internal investigation into these matters which resulted in the Registrant's dismissal on 22 December 2021 for Gross Misconduct, as set out in the Trust's letter dated 6 January 2022.

22. The HCPC conducted its own investigation into these matters obtaining a statement from Person A; a statement from the care Group Director for the Mental Health Unit where the Registrant worked and a statement from a Senior HR Advisor for the Trust.

23. On 30 June 2022, as a result of the HCPC's investigation, the Investigating Committee referred the allegation to a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee.

Background to the Present Application for a Consensual Disposal

24. On 28 September 2022, further to referral of these matters to the Conduct and Competence Committee, the Registrant was contacted by the HCPC’s representatives to clarify her employment and representation in order to progress the post-ICP stage of the investigation. The Registrant emailed in response on the same day outlining that she acknowledged the misconduct alleged and wished to come off the Register, confirming she had now retired and had no plans to return to work:

“Are you currently in employment? No, nor do I intend to have further employment as a clinical psychologist. I am now retired. I am 74 years of age. As I have stated in my form, I acknowledge the alleged misconduct. I wish to have my name removed from the HCPC register.”

25. On 5 October 2022 information was sent to the Registrant regarding the voluntary removal process. In light of her admissions, it was queried whether she would be open to Voluntary Removal by Agreement (VRA). It was explained to her that for such an agreement, she would have to admit to the substance of the allegations and accept her fitness to practice is impaired. The relevant practice note was provided to explain the process. She was also told a Panel would have to approve the agreement and if accepted it would mean a substantive hearing in relation to the allegations would no longer be required.

26. On 6 October 2022, having reviewed the information on voluntary removal, and the practice note on disposal by consent, the Registrant confirmed she wished to pursue voluntary removal and that she accepted the current allegation in full. She signed a document confirming she admitted the allegations in full, admitted her fitness to practice was impaired, she would immediately resign from the HCPC Register, she would cease to practice as a clinical psychologist and would cease to use this title. She also confirmed that she understood if she were to reapply in the future then she would be treated as being struck off. In relation to reapplying in the future, she added:

“The likelihood of this is negligible, as I am now 74 years of age and no longer work/or am employed. I am retired”.

27. Having reviewed the case and the Registrant's request for voluntary removal, the HCPC concluded this matter was appropriate for voluntary removal. A hearing was therefore scheduled to consider the Registrant's application for voluntary removal, and the Registrant was sent a copy of the VRA, and Consent Pro-Forma documentation.

28. The Registrant signed and returned these documents on 7 November 2022. The signed and completed copy of the agreement is contained within the bundle now before the Panel.

Guidance as set out in the Skeleton Argument

29. The HCPC has in the Skeleton Argument set out guidance as to nature and consequence of a VRA, together with the procedure to be followed and the principles to be applied. That guidance is in the terms set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the Skeleton Argument have been retained, but are shown in brackets:

(13) The VRA, as signed by the Registrant, is an agreement to the effect that the HCPC will not take any further action against the registrant in relation to these proceedings, on the understanding that the Registrant will remove herself from the Register, cease from practising as a Clinical Psychologist, and not attempt to re-join the register within a prescribed period of 5 years.

(14) If the registrant were to apply to come back on to the Register, their application would be treated in the same way as someone who had been struck off following a Conduct and Competence Committee hearing.

(15) The Health Professions Order 2001 does not explicitly provide for consent arrangements. However, as set out in R v Home Office Policy and Advisory Board for Forensic Pathology, a tribunal "does have intrinsic powers, simply by virtue of being a tribunal. It has the obligation to observe the rules of natural justice and to conduct its proceedings fairly and to decide procedural matters which are not expressly dealt with in the rules… It may well be that a tribunal acting fairly can fill in the procedural gaps". Although not provided for in rules or legislation, the HCPC has put together a Practice Note which advises Panel's about the procedure for allowing a case, where suitable, to be disposed of by consent.

Submissions

The Written Submissions of the HCPC

30. The submissions of the HCPC, as set out in the Skeleton Argument and adopted by Mr. D’Alton as the basis of his submission to the Panel, are set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the Skeleton Argument have been retained but are shown in brackets:

(16) The HCPC submits that, in all the circumstances, voluntary removal from the Register would be an appropriate means of resolving the current matter.

(17) The HCPC would highlight in support of the Registrant's application for Voluntary Removal that:

(17.1) The Registrant has had the opportunity to review the voluntary removal process and its implications;

(17.2) The Registrant has made full admissions in relation to the current allegations;

(17.3) The Registrant has cooperated with the HCPC throughout the investigation;

(17.4) The Registrant has shown insight at an early stage through her reflective statements and apology submitted to the ICP;

(17.5) The Registrant has now retired and has expressed she has no desire to return to practise as a Clinical Psychologist as she is now 74;

(18) The Practice Note sets out two matters that a Panel should be satisfied of before agreeing to resolve a case by consent:

(a) Firstly, that the appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and

(b) Secondly, that doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

Public protection

(19) Given that the VRA signed by the Registrant has the equivalent effect of a striking off order, the HCPC submits that the necessary public protection would be ensured by allowing the Registrant's application for removal from the Register.

Wider public interest

(20) The HCPC also submits that it would not be detrimental to the wider public interest to dispose of this matter by way of voluntary removal.

(21) The HCPC respectfully submits that as the Registrant has admitted to the allegations; shown insight into her conduct; and wishes to resolve this matter as expediently as possible given she has now retired; a reasonable and informed member of the public would agree that disposal by consent to voluntary removal is the most fair and proportionate means of disposal for these matters.

(22) The HCPC reiterates that the registrant has admitted the substance of the allegations and that voluntary removal from the register will have the same effect as a striking off order. It is submitted that these factors are sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour.

(23) It is therefore submitted that permitting the Registrant to be removed from the Register under the terms of the VRA is an appropriate and expeditious way of dealing with this matter, and the HCPC respectfully invites the Panel to approve the proposed agreement.

Oral Submissions made by Mr. D’Alton on behalf of the HCPC

31. Mr. D’Alton adopted the submissions that are set out in the Skeleton Argument. He summarised the background, the principles to be applied and the justification for seeking a consensual outcome by way of a VRA.

32. Person A had submitted a letter in advance of the hearing, which had been before the Tribunal. In light of this, Mr D’Alton further submitted that the Registrant appeared to be registered also in both Sweden and Germany so the HCPC would be informing the appropriate authority in each country of any regulatory outcome and then it would be a matter for those authorities to decide how they wish to proceed. He also stated it had been brought to his attention that the Registrant may have practiced in Italy and if the HCPC discover she is registered there then that is something they would look into, but this does not materially affect the application before the Panel today.

33. For the sake of clarity, he confirmed that any allegations made by Person A that were not taken forward by the Investigating Committee Panel was due to there being insufficient evidence to proceed.

34. Finally, he submitted the voluntary removal would have the same effect as a striking-off sanction, the Registrant had accepted this, expressed remorse, taken steps to address this and will be retiring with no intention to return to practice. He reminded the Panel that the purpose of the hearing is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and maintain standards.

The Stated Position of the Registrant

35. The Panel noted the Document entitled Consensual Disposal Request Pro Forma dated 7 November 2022 in which the Registrant admitted the substance of the allegation against her and that her fitness to practise was currently impaired by reason of her misconduct. She stated she had read the HCPTS Practice note “Disposal of Cases by Consent” and she stated her desire for the matter to be disposed of by way of Voluntary Removal.

36. The Panel has seen a further draft document signed by the Registrant and dated 6 October 2022 in which the Registrant admitted the substance of the Allegation and also her current impairment; she further stated her desire for the matter to be disposed of by way of Voluntary Removal.

37. The Panel has seen the VRA dated 7 November 2022, signed by the Registrant and by someone on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel has also seen the associated documents. The Panel notes that in Schedule C (Agreed Statement) to the VRA, the Registrant confirms that she has admitted the Allegation. Schedule C formally recorded that;

“The Registrant admitted the allegation, accepts current impairment and has undertaken not to practice as a Practitioner Psychologist or use any title associated with that profession.”

Decision of the Panel made on 9 December 2022

38. The Panel has considered the submissions of the HCPC as set out in the Skeleton Argument adopted by Mr D’Alton, as well as his oral submissions. The Panel has taken account of the position of the Registrant as stated in the documents identified above. The Panel has further considered all the other documents that have been submitted.

39. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

40. In deciding whether or not to approve the agreement for Voluntary Removal, the Panel has had regard to the Practice Note published by the HCPTS in March 2018; “Disposal of Cases by Consent” [the Practice Note].

41. The Panel has concluded that the VRA should be approved. Its reasons are as follows:

• The Panel is satisfied that all the criteria set out in the Practice Note has been complied with;

• The Registrant has admitted the substance of the Allegation. She has also admitted that her fitness to practise is thereby impaired. Additionally, she had demonstrated insight;

• The public will be adequately protected by the voluntary removal of the Registrant’s name from the register, which will have the same effect as if she had been struck off;

• Moreover, the Panel has concluded that a well-informed member of the public would conclude that this matter is properly disposed of by the VRA as sought by both the Registrant and the HCPC;

• Whilst the Panel acknowledge that the HCPC only has jurisdiction in the UK, Mr D’Alton submitted that the HCPC would be informing the appropriate authority in Sweden and Germany of this regulatory outcome and agreed to take instructions in respect of Italy;

• The Panel has concluded that disposal by consent is a suitable, pragmatic and expeditious way of dealing with this matter. In the opinion of the Panel there was no public interest in this matter continuing to a substantive hearing.

42. For all the reasons that are set out above, the Panel has determined to approve the outcome sought in the VRA with immediate effect.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Ms Sarah Lundqvist from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Ms Sarah Lundqvist