Mr Ashir Patel

 

 

1. Ms Lykourgou, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the date on the Allegation to be amended to 26 June 2019, on the basis that the Certificate of Conviction confirms that the Registrant’s plea of Guilty at the Crown Court was on 26 June 2019 and not on 1 August 2019, which was the date he was sentenced.

 

2. Mr McGhee, on behalf of the Registrant, did not object.

 

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel took into account that, although no advance notice of this application to amend had been given to the Registrant, the Registrant did not object. It was a matter of reflecting the correct date and did not change the nature or gravity of the case in any way. The Panel decided that no prejudice resulted to the Registrant as a result of the proposed amendment and decided that it would be fair to allow it.

 

 

Whilst registered with the Health and Care Professions Council as a Radiographer, and employed by the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, you:

 

1. On 26 June 2019, at Kingston-Upon-Thames Crown Court, were convicted of two counts of dishonestly making false representation to make gain for yourself or loss to another.

 

2. By reason of your conviction, your fitness to practise is impaired.

 

 

4. Mr McGhee applied for any parts of the hearing which heard details of the Registrant’s health, to be in private.

 

5. Ms Lykourgou agreed.

 

6. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel decided to hear those parts of the hearing in private which referred to details of the Registrant’s health, in order to protect his private life.

 

 

7. The Registrant is a registered Radiographer. On 2 February 2018, the HCPC received a referral from the Registrant’s employer, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital (“the Hospital”) regarding allegations that the Registrant had been claiming payments for work that had not been undertaken. The Registrant had been employed in a senior role as a Superintendent Radiographer.

 

8. The Hospital engaged its counter fraud team to investigate, and an internal investigation was undertaken within the Hospital. It was found that the Registrant had claimed payment for reporting on images when he had not actually carried out the reporting work, and that he had claimed for weekend on-call work when he had not actually worked those on-call shifts.

 

9. On 26 June 2019 at Kingston-Upon-Thames Crown Court, the Registrant pleaded Guilty to two counts of dishonestly making false representations to make a gain. On 1 August 2019, the Registrant was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment for each offence to run concurrently, suspended for 24 months.

 

He was also ordered to pay a £140 victim surcharge, as well as a contribution towards the prosecution’s costs in the sum of £1200.

 

10. With regard to Count 1, which related to the reporting work performed as “bank work” over the period January 2016 – September 2017 the Registrant was sentenced on the basis that the gain to him, net of tax, national insurance and pension contributions paid by the NHS Trust, was £44,535.33. The standard rate of £3 per report was claimed for in excess of 20,000 images which he did not in fact report on.

 

11. With regard to Count 2, which concerns the on-call work at the weekends, the Registrant was sentenced on the basis that he claimed £3,500 for shifts he had not undertaken.

 

12. As the Sentencing Judge noted, the amount gained by the Registrant had been repaid to the Hospital by the Registrant before he was sent for trial in January 2019.

 

 

13. The Panel read the HCPC’s bundle and the Registrant’s bundle as well as an additional character reference and letter from the Registrant.

 

14. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Lykourgou and Mr McGhee. The Panel was aware that the burden of proof in respect of fact is on the HCPC to the civil standard, namely on the balance of probabilities.

 

15. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

 

16. The Panel took into account Rule 10(1)(d) of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 which provides that where a Registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based.

 

17. The Registrant admitted that he had received the conviction as set out in the HCPC’s Allegation.

 

18. The Panel had sight of a certified and signed Certificate of Conviction issued by Kingston-Upon-Thames Crown Court on 10 January 2020 referring to the Registrant’s plea of Guilty to two counts of Fraud.

 

19. Taking into account the Registrant’s admission as well as the Certificate of Conviction, the Panel was satisfied that the factual particulars were proved.

 

 

20. Having found the factual particular proved, which, as a conviction, forms the statutory ground upon which a finding of impairment may be based, the Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

 

21. The Panel considered all of the documents before it in the HCPC’s hearing bundle, including the transcript of the Judge’s sentencing remarks on 29 March 2019. The Panel also read the Registrant’s bundle and documents.

 

22. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Lykourgou that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the basis of the personal and public components.

 

23. Mr McGhee informed the Panel that the Registrant accepts that his fitness to practise is currently impaired.

 

24. The Registrant did not give evidence. However, he called two live character witnesses. The first, Mr 1, was the Registrant’s direct line-manager from 2001 until Mr 1’s retirement approximately 4 years ago. The Panel considered that Mr 1 was a straightforward, clear and balanced witness and gave useful information because he had also undertaken the bank reporting work in respect of which the Registrant had claimed payment. The second character witness, Dr 2, was the Registrant’s current business partner. The Registrant and Dr 2 are in the final stages of setting up a referral-based diagnostic imaging centre in Harley Street, carrying out CT scans for dental surgeries. The Registrant has been working clinically in this business. The Panel was of the view that Dr 2 was not a wholly independent witness in that he is the Registrant’s business partner and has an interest in the Registrant retaining his registration. Nevertheless, the Panel concluded that he was a straightforward witness and he had no intention to mislead the Panel.

 

25. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to CHRE v (1) NMC (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927. It took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Finding that Fitness to Practise is ‘Impaired’”. The Panel was aware that impairment is a matter for its own independent judgment and that public protection and the wider public interest should be considered.

 

26. The Registrant has yet to complete his suspended sentence of imprisonment which expires on 1 August 2021.

 

27. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s plea of guilty on 26 June 2019 which indicated a degree of insight. The Panel also took into account that he was sentenced on the basis that he was a person of good character without prior convictions. The Registrant has a previously unblemished work record.

 

The Panel also took into account his impressive character references, as well as the testimonials attesting to his highly regarded clinical skills.

 

28. The Panel had in mind the following fundamental tenets of the profession:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.1. Understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.

 

29. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant, by way of his conduct which led to the conviction for serious dishonesty offences, was in breach of the above standards.

 

30. The Panel took into account the significant duration of the dishonesty, as well as the amount of money which he gained, although the Panel also took into account that the Registrant had paid back the money he gained.

 

31. The Panel took into account that the Registrant was employed in a leadership role as a Superintendent Radiographer, and that he committed a serious breach of trust.

 

32. The Panel read the Registrant’s statement to his former employer dated 25 September 2017. In that document, he stated that he became aware that he was unable to keep up with his reporting work for which he had claimed, yet he had continued to claim for it. He also stated that in a meeting with his line manager in March 2017 he reported the issue, and that she had told him to stop his approach of claiming for reporting work before he had carried it out. However, he stated that due to pressure of work, he had continued. The Panel noted that the Registrant did not then accept that he had been dishonest in his statement to his former employer, rather that his actions had been due to his “mismanagement”. The Panel also noted that he did not plead guilty at the first available opportunity during the criminal process. For example he did not plead guilty at the Plea and Trial preparation hearing, but changed his plea to guilty a few days before the commencement of the trial.

 

33. Nevertheless, the Panel went on to consider the most recent evidence of the Registrant’s insight in light of the fact that his fitness to practise as of today’s date is in question. The Panel carefully considered the Registrant’s undated letter submitted to the Panel for the purpose of this hearing. He expressed his remorse, apology, and shame, and accepts that he was dishonest. The Panel examined carefully what the Registrant has written about his insight into the impact on others of his dishonesty. He does refer to the effect on colleagues, his employer and patients, however this is limited. The Panel also noted that the Registrant in his letter did not make any reference to the on-call work for which he had claimed but had not carried out. The Panel was therefore of the view that the Registrant’s insight and reflection upon his criminal behaviour and the wide-ranging degree of impact it would have had was not sufficiently deep or developed.

 

34. Further in his letter, the Registrant states that he will not repeat his actions. However, once more there is no information or explanation as to how he has developed awareness of what went wrong, or his journey of reflection. Neither is there information of any steps to ensure that he would not repeat his behaviour, for example in similar circumstances of pressure of work or personal challenges.

 

35. As a result, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant had demonstrated limited insight into the severity of his criminal behaviour, limited insight into what caused it, and how he will ensure it will not be repeated.

 

36. With regard to remediation, the Panel noted that the Registrant has not yet completed his criminal sentence. However, aside from this, noting that it is difficult (although not necessarily impossible) to remediate dishonest behaviour, and given his limited insight, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s remediation is also limited.

 

37. The Panel carefully considered the impact of the Registrant’s dishonest offending on patients. While there is no suggestion that the Registrant’s clinical skills are in question, the Panel was of the view that the possible delays in reporting on patients’ images in circumstances where there was already a known backlog did give rise to an unwarranted risk of harm to patients. Delays in reporting on images is likely to result in delays in diagnosis, as well as subsequent clinical care and treatment.

 

38. Furthermore, the Panel took into account that the money the Hospital paid to the Registrant with the aim of reducing the imaging reporting backlog may otherwise have been spent in a way to reduce the backlog more effectively.

 

39. The Panel took into account the questions formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman report, as set out in the case of Grant, and decided that the Registrant had in the past acted so as to put patients at unwarranted risk of harm. Considering the other questions of Dame Janet Smith, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant had in the past, by way of his conduct which led to the conviction, brought the profession into disrepute, breached fundamental tenets of the profession as set out above, and had acted dishonestly.

 

40. In light of the limited insight and remediation demonstrated by the Registrant, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant is liable to put patients at an unwarranted risk of harm, bring the profession into disrepute, breach fundamental tenets and act dishonestly in the future.

 

41. The role of a Radiographer incorporates a responsibility in maintaining high professional and personal standards which are necessary for public confidence in the professional exercising that role. A Radiographer deals with patients who may be extremely vulnerable and for whom clinical care may depend upon their work which needs to be undertaken in a timely manner. The conviction for serious matters of dishonesty undermines confidence in the Registrant as a professional. The conviction also undermines confidence in the wider profession.

 

 

42. On 4 December 2020, the Panel considered the submissions on sanction made by Ms Lykourgou and Mr McGhee. The Panel did not have time to conclude its deliberations on sanction in order to hand down a determination on that date.

 

43. The matter was due to be reconvened on 27 April 2021 for the purpose of handing down the determination on sanction. In advance of that date, the Chair sitting alone at a preliminary meeting, considered an application from the Registrant for an adjournment on the grounds of his poor health, and the Chair granted that application on 26 April 2021.

 

44. The Panel alone met with the Legal Assessor and continued its deliberations on 27 April 2021.

 

45. For various reasons, which are not totally known to the Panel, but which appear to have been contributed to by internal staff changes at the HCPTS and delays in finding mutually convenient dates for relisting, the matter was not re-listed until today’s date, 27 July 2022. The Panel was clear that the delay was not due to any fault on the part of the Registrant or his representatives. In this regard the

 

Panel saw a summarised explanation of the reason for the delay in an email from an employee of the HCPTS dated 27 July 2022.

 

46. The Chair sitting alone at a preliminary hearing considered an application from the Registrant for an adjournment of today’s hearing on the grounds that he had a hospital appointment for a medical procedure which was due to take place on 27 July 2022 and therefore could not attend. The Chair refused that application on 14 July 2022, for several reasons, including that today’s hearing was for handing down the decision, having already heard submissions, there was no indication in the application for an adjournment, that there were then no more submissions to be made by the Registrant, and the passage of time between the adjournment in April 2021 and the most recent application to adjourn today’s hearing.

 

47. The hearing convened on 27 July 2022, from which the Registrant was absent but continued to be represented by his Counsel, Mr McGhee.

 

 

 

48. Mr McGhee raised the matter that he wished to rely on further submissions to be put before the Panel. However, before elaborating upon this request, he made an application pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules for all matters relating to the Registrant’s health to be heard in private.

 

49. Mr Bridges on behalf of the HCPC did not object.

 

50. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was mindful of its previous decision in this case which decided to proceed in this way. For the same reasons as before, the Panel determined to hear any matters of the Registrant’s health in private.

 

 

51. On the morning of 27 July 2022, while the Panel was still in deliberations on sanction, Mr McGhee applied to submit two further documents to be read by the Panel before concluding its deliberations on sanction.

 

52. Mr Bridges did not object.

 

53. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor which was that it was fair and appropriate for the Panel to allow those submissions to be made, and indeed she encouraged the Panel to do so in light of the fact that it had not yet handed down its decision.

 

54. The Panel decided to allow the further submissions, and it heard the further oral submissions of Mr McGhee and read the two further documents placed before it. The first was a written submission on behalf of the Registrant dated 26 July 2022 and the second was a letter to the Panel from the Registrant himself also dated 26 July 2022.

 

55. Mr Bridges did not make any submissions in respect of the further submissions on behalf of the Registrant.

 

56. The Panel therefore took these further submissions, made on behalf of the Registrant, into account when coming to its decision on sanction.

 

 

57. In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Lykourgou, and Mr McGhee on 4 December 2020, as well as Mr McGhee’s submissions on 27 July 2022, and the further written submissions put before it, as set out above.

 

58. The Panel read the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (SP) and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the aim of any sanction is not to be punitive. Rather, the aim is to uphold the protection of the public and the wider public interest, sanction is a matter for the independent judgment of the Panel. The Panel took into account the principle of proportionality in coming to its decision on sanction.

 

59. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

 

i. the lack of any previous regulatory findings against the Registrant and his previous good character;

 

ii. the Registrant voluntarily repaid the Trust the net gain he received in the sum of £44,535.33;

 

iii. positive character references;

 

iv. the Registrant’s chronic ill health;

 

v. the passage of time between the Panel’s finding of impairment and the Panel’s decision on sanction;

 

vi. the lack of any further concerns about the Registrant’s practice while he has continued to work clinically in a radiographic business which he established with an associate around 18 months ago.

 

60. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

 

i. large sum of money taken;

 

ii. a pattern of sustained and escalating dishonesty over a significant period of time;

 

iii. breach of trust in a senior role as a Superintendent Radiographer;

 

iv. warned by his supervisor in March 2017, to cease claiming for his reporting work which he had not undertaken, but the warning was ignored;

 

v. the Registrant never admitted dishonesty to the Trust;

 

vi. the Registrant’s behaviour had potential to cause harm to many service users.

 

61. Since the Panel’s decision on Impairment, the Registrant’s two-year suspension of his 16 months’ custodial sentence, expired on 1 August 2021. The Panel took into account that therefore the general principle in that, a panel should not allow a Registrant to resume unrestricted practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed, while operative at the time of the decision on Impairment, no longer applied.

 

62. The Panel noted its findings in its determination on Impairment that the Registrant’s insight and remediation at that stage in time were limited. The Panel took into account the letter from the Registrant dated 26 July 2022. In that document he stated that he has reflected on the Panel’s earlier findings and accepts them. However, the Panel also considered it significant that he continued to refer to his criminal behaviour as “mistakes”. As such the Panel concluded that he sought to minimise its seriousness by referring to a pattern of sustained criminal dishonesty over a significant period of time as “mistakes”. While he expressed remorse and apology, and referred to “the people I have let down, including the profession I love”, the Panel considered that there was limited reflection on the impact of his behaviour on the Trust or on the risk which he created to patients, including his impact upon the Trust’s ability to carry out its duty of care to patients in a way which those patients had a right to expect. In addition, as before in his undated letter to the Panel which was before it at the Impairment stage, in his letter dated 26 July 2022 he once more omitted to make any reference to the on-call work for which he had claimed but had not carried out. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s insight remained limited.

 

63. In terms of the Registrant’s remediation, the Panel took into account that the Registrant has established a successful imaging business at which he undertakes scanning and carries out almost all of the clinical duties required. The Registrant previously referred to having been “overwhelmed” by work at the time of his criminal behaviour and that this contributed to his backlog of work and subsequent “series of mistakes”. In his letter of 26 July 2022, he stated that he has developed a business management system in his own business to improve patients’ experience. While this is a positive matter, the Panel did not consider that this assisted him in demonstrating how he would avoid repeating the same behaviour if working under pressure in a busy NHS department with its own unique and different pressures. The Panel concluded once again that the Registrant has shown limited remediation of the matters which led to the conviction.

 

64. The Panel considered the level of seriousness of the dishonesty. The Registrant began his role as a Superintendent Radiographer in 2016 and the dishonesty began in the same month. The Panel also took into account that by the nature of the way the dishonesty continued, he did not stop it until he was confronted by the Trust, nor was there any admission of dishonesty to the Trust. Each element of claiming for work which was not done was, in the Panel’s view, an active act of dishonesty. The Panel also took into account that the Registrant failed to respond to a warning from his supervisor for over-claiming on his reporting work, for which the Registrant’s explanation was that he was overwhelmed by the volume of work. He had ample opportunity to stop, but he did not. In light of the nature of the dishonesty, and the breach of trust, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant committed serious dishonesty. It was neither minor or isolated. Rather it was persistent and prolonged. As well as this, the Panel noted an escalation of the Registrant’s dishonest behaviour in that he began claiming for on-call work which was not undertaken in the final three months before his fraud was uncovered by the Trust and an investigation launched.

 

65. The Panel was of the view that mediation is not appropriate in respect of a criminal conviction for dishonesty.

 

66. The Panel discounted taking no further action because the criminal conviction was too serious for such an outcome, there was a real risk of repetition, and such an outcome would not satisfy the need to protect the public and the public interest in this case.

 

67. With regard to a caution, the SP states at para. 101:

 

 

 

 

 

 

68. The Panel was of the view that none of these criteria were met in this case.

 

69. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order but was satisfied that this would not be appropriate because there are no concerns about the Registrant’s clinical practice and no conditions could be formulated which would address the risk of repetition of the dishonesty in question or be sufficient to protect the public or maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

 

70. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order and considered para. 121 of the SP:

 

 

 

 

 

 

71. The Panel took into account the mitigating factors in this case. However, in light of the limited insight and limited remediation demonstrated by the Registrant, he is liable to put patients at an unwarranted risk of harm, bring the profession into disrepute, breach fundamental tenets and act dishonestly in the future. In light of this, and the level of seriousness of the dishonesty, the Panel concluded that Suspension would not be appropriate or sufficient to protect the public and uphold the wider public interest.

 

72. The Panel considered paragraphs 130 and 131 of the SP:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant committed serious, persistent and escalating dishonesty, which continued for a significant period of time. The Panel noted the Registrant’s undated statement to the Panel, in which he gives explanations of feeling out of his depth, and feeling overwhelmed with work, although he accepts dishonesty. However, that statement demonstrates limited insight, as explained in the Panel’s decision on impairment of fitness to practise. For example, his remorse centres primarily on the effect upon himself and his family. Although there is some recognition of the detrimental effect on his colleagues and the reputation of the Trust, there is little recognition of the likely impact of his dishonest behaviour on hospital services and the knock-on effect to patients. In addition, that statement does not refer to the claims for the on-call work which he did not do. That is significant, because, in the Panel’s view, the claims for on- call work were claims to which could not be applied the explanation, which he had relied upon in respect of the claims for the reporting work, that he was struggling to keep up with his work and that a backlog built up. The on-call work was work for which he put himself on the rota, did not undertake, but for which he claimed £3,500.

 

74. Furthermore, the Panel noted the sustained nature of the dishonesty, which was serious, persistent and deliberate, and the many months in which the Registrant had the opportunity to stop and be honest in the way he was claiming for work, but failed to take the opportunity. He was warned by his supervisor to cease claiming the reporting work in the way in which he was, but he ignored this warning. He did not admit dishonesty to his employer, stating in a statement in November 2017, in relation to the bank reporting work, that it was due to his “mismanagement”. He did not refer to the on-call work which he had been claiming for between May and August 2017. He initially pleaded Not Guilty in the criminal process but indicated to the prosecution that he would plead guilty, and indeed did so plead, in the month prior to the date fixed for trial. Thus, there was no early admission of guilt.

 

75. With regard to the implications of his dishonesty for protection of the public, the Panel has already observed the possible delays in reporting on a vast number of patients’ images. The Panel noted the sentencing hearing in which there was reference made to the Registrant’s claim for 20,489 more reports than he had actually performed. This was in circumstances where there was already a known backlog in reports which give rise to an unwarranted risk of harm to patients.

 

Delays in reporting on images are likely to result in delays in diagnosis, as well as subsequent clinical care and treatment, which has the potential to cause harm. Delays in diagnosis also have the potential to cause patients anxiety and stress.

 

76. In addition, any significant financial loss to the NHS, as occurred here, gives rise to potential patient harm.

 

77. With regard to the implications for the Hospital, the money which it paid the Registrant could have been spent on those who would do the work. In addition, the Hospital in fact lost more financially than the Registrant repaid, because the Registrant only repaid the net gain received by him. The Panel noted from the sentencing hearing that the total loss to the Trust was £64,969. In addition, there were the resourcing and investigation costs flowing from the need to investigate the fraud. In addition, there was the real risk of reputational damage to the Trust.

 

78. The Registrant has not, including in his letter to the Panel dated 26 July 2022, explained in any meaningful way how he has remediated his dishonesty or how he would change his approach to work so as to not perpetuate dishonesty in the future, for example in dealing with a large volume of work which he would find difficult to cope with.

 

79. In his most recent letter to the Panel dated 26 July 2022, despite stating that he has reflected on the Panel’s finding on Impairment handed down some 19 months ago, the Panel has found that his insight has not developed in any meaningful way. As such, the Panel concluded that the lack of evidence of sufficient insight and remediation at this stage of the hearing, was a significant factor, despite the time which has elapsed during the hearing process, which gave the Registrant a significant time in which to develop meaningful insight, reflection, and sufficient evidence of remediation in respect of serious criminal dishonesty.

 

80. All of these factors as set out above led the Panel to decide that any lesser sanction would undermine public protection and public confidence in the profession concerned or the regulatory process. Striking off is the only way in which the protection of the public and the wider public interest can be upheld.

 

81. In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the principle of proportionality, and carefully considered the impact that such a sanction will have on the Registrant’s right to practise his profession, as well as the likely reputational and financial impact, when making its decision. In this regard the Panel weighed up the information about the Registrant’s reliance on his income as a Radiographer, including the reliance of his family upon him financially. However, when weighing up all the factors set out in this determination, the Panel decided that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests in this regard.

 

82. The Panel therefore decided to impose a Striking Off Order.

 

 

 

1. The Panel heard an application from Mr Bridges for an 18-month Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period. Mr Bridges submitted that a member of the public would be surprised or shocked if no interim order were in place.

 

2. Mr McGhee opposed the application, submitting that an interim order is not necessary to protect the public, that this was a conviction case, and that there was no suggestion in reality of patient harm. Further, on balance, a properly informed member of the public would not be shocked if no order were in place. Mr McGhee submitted that the Registrant was the sole clinician in his business and that there would be an impact on patients waiting to be scanned by him if he were suspended with immediate effect.

 

3. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Interim Orders” as well as Paragraphs 133-5 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

 

4. The Panel took into account its previous findings, and adopting its reasons, the Panel came to the conclusion that an interim order is necessary to protect the public, in light of the real risk of harm to the public which the Panel has already found to exist in both its Impairment and Sanction decisions. An interim order is also in the wider public interest in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards.

 

5. The Panel was mindful of its decision at the sanction stage that Conditions were not appropriate. The Panel considered that not to impose an Interim Suspension Order would be inconsistent with its finding that a Striking Off Order is required.

 

6. The Panel recognised that the Panel must take into consideration the impact of such an interim order on the Registrant as part of the principle of proportionality, and must balance the impact on the Registrant with the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest. In the circumstances of the case, the Panel was satisfied that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests in this regard. This matter has been ongoing for a significant period of time, and the Registrant has in effect had notice for a significant time and therefore time to prepare for the potential situation where an interim order of suspension may be imposed.

 

7. The Panel decided to impose an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months, a duration which is appropriate and proportionate in light of the Panel’s previous decisions, in order to allow any appeal which the Registrant brings, to be concluded.

 

 

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension 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.