Mr Ian R Lawson

Part of the Hearing in Private

1. Mr D’Alton, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the entire hearing to proceed in private, because matters of the Registrant’s health were inextricably bound up with the application before the Panel today.
2. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that the entirety of the hearing which should be in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules. This was because the matters for the Panel to consider today were inextricably linked to matters of the Registrant’s health.
Service
3. The Panel saw the Notice of today’s hearing which was emailed on 14 June 2022 to the Registrant’s email address as shown on the HCPC Register.

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

5. The Panel was satisfied that, taking into account all the circumstances, the Notice had been served as required by Rules 3 and 6 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in absence

6. Mr D’Alton, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. He reminded the Panel that there were no matters of dispute between the parties, both having signed a voluntary removal agreement (VRA) to allow the Registrant to be removed from the register. Mr D’Alton referred to the Registrant’s engagement with the HCPC about the VRA and his awareness of today’s hearing as evident from that engagement. In such circumstances, Mr D’Alton submitted that it was in the Registrant’s interests as well as the public interest for the hearing to proceed today so that the Panel could consider the VRA.

7. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”, and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence should only be exercised with the utmost care and caution.

8. It was clear that to the Panel that the Registrant was aware of the purpose of today’s hearing, namely, to consider the Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA). This was on the basis of the pro forma document completed by the Registrant and dated 30 March 2022, as well as the VRA itself. The Panel also took into account the note of a telephone conversation between the Registrant and Mr D’Alton, dated 30 March 2022, in which the Registrant asked whether he had to attend the VRA hearing, and it was confirmed to him by Mr D’Alton that he did not have to.

9. On the basis of the information before it, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend and expected that the hearing would proceed in his absence. The Panel was of the view that in light of the Registrant’s position, there was little if any prejudice to the Registrant in proceeding today to hear the application for voluntary removal. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest and in the Registrant’s interests that the agreement should be considered expeditiously. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, deeming this to be fair, in the interests of justice, and in the public interest. 


Background

10. The Registrant is a registered chiropodist/ podiatrist.

11. The Registrant was subject to a final substantive hearing which took place on 12- 15 August 2019 to hear the Allegation set out at the start of this written decision.

12. The Registrant admitted all factual particulars at the final hearing. The final hearing panel found all factual particulars proved, and, further, that those particulars amounted to misconduct. By reason of the misconduct found, that panel decided that the Registrant was impaired, and imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 36 months.

13. The Registrant and an officer on behalf of the HCPC signed the VRA on 16 July 2022 and 12 July 2022 respectively. In signing the VRA the Registrant thereby accepted that his current fitness to practise is impaired and confirmed that he had no intention of returning to practise as he had retired due to ill health.

Decision

14. The Panel had regard to the HCPC’s main and addendum bundles which included the HCPC’s skeleton argument dated 26 June 2022 as well as the VRA document signed by both parties.

15. The Panel heard submissions from Mr D’Alton that the HCPC was satisfied that voluntary removal from the Register was an appropriate disposal of this case and would not compromise public protection or the wider public interest. Mr D’Alton reminded the Panel that the effect of a VRA is the same as a strike-off from the Register following a finding of impairment of fitness to practise.

16. Mr D’Alton referred to an email from the Registrant dated 14 April 2022 which set out his health conditions.

17. Mr D’Alton told the Panel that the HCPC accepted that the Registrant was unable to remediate his misconduct, and therefore address his impairment due to his health conditions. In such circumstances it was fair and proportionate for the VRA to be approved, rather than this matter progressing on its fitness to practice journey to an eventual hearing which would strike him off.

18. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 


19. The Panel reminded itself of the guidance offered in the HCPC Practice Note entitled “Disposal of Cases by Consent”.

20. The Panel took into account all of the evidence before it, including the Registrant’s email dated 14 April 2022 as well as the information he gave about his health in the pro forma document completed by him dated 30 March 2022.

21. In all the circumstances, the Panel was therefore satisfied that the HCPC has put forward an objectively justified explanation for why the matter is suitable for disposal by a VRA.

22. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has had it explained to him that the ultimate decision as to whether or not to approve the VRA lies with the Panel. This explanation was given in an email from the HCPC to the Registrant dated 17 March 2022 and was referred to in the pro forma document dated 30 March 2022.

23. The Panel was satisfied that the public protection would be served by the removal of the Registrant from the Register, as it would have the same effect as if he had been struck off the Register.

24. It was clear to the Panel that this was not a case which required an examination, at any hearing, as to the demands of the public interest. As a result, the Panel was satisfied that the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper professional standards would not be undermined if this matter was disposed of by consent. The public interest would not be adversely affected by the VRA. Rather, in the Panel’s view, the public interest would be served by the expeditious resolution provided by the VRA.

25. The Panel noted from the Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent that where an order such as a conditions of practice order is in place, a VRA cannot take effect unless those proceedings are withdrawn or a Panel revokes the order. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concluded that it would not undermine public protection, or the wider public interest if the current Conditions of Practice Order was revoked.


26. For all these reasons, the Panel revoked the current Conditions of Practice Order and approved the signed VRA.

The current Conditions of Practice Order is revoked, and the Voluntary Removal Agreement is approved.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Ian R Lawson