Ms Rosamund Emerson

Preliminary Matters:

Service/Proceeding in absence

1. The Panel was satisfied that service of the hearing had been effected by a letter dated 28 April 2022 that was posted to the Registrant’s address. The HCPC had also sent an email dated 22 April 2022 to the Registrant’s solicitors, who had confirmed to the HCPC that they had discussed this hearing with her.

2. The Registrant did not appear nor was she represented. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Khorassani applied for the hearing to be conducted in the absence of the Registrant on the basis that the Registrant had been notified of the date, time and location of the hearing at her registered address and that it was in the public interest for the hearing to proceed expeditiously.

3. Having considered the HCPTS Practice Note on proceeding in absence and the advice of the Legal Assessor on the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 (“the fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against medical practitioners is of real importance”), the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had received notice of today’s hearing. The Panel had regard to a telephone note in which the Registrant’s solicitor confirmed that she was aware of the hearing. There was no indication that she would attend at a later date if today’s hearing were to be adjourned. The Panel had in mind that the Registrant had engaged constructively with the HCPC in agreeing to bring the proceedings to an agreed conclusion and that the purpose of this hearing was to give effect to that agreement. It would be unfair to both parties not to proceed or to prolong the process.

Hearing in private

4. Matters relating to the heath of the Registrant form the substance of the primary allegation. Rule 10 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules enabled whole or part of the hearing to be held in private for the protection of the private life of the Registrant or witnesses. The Panel therefore determined that the hearing should be held in private.

Decision:

5. The Panel considered the public protection and public interest tests as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on the Disposal of Cases by Consent and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

6. The Panel determined that this was an appropriate case for voluntary removal from the register.

7. The Panel concluded that the public would be protected by the Registrant’s agreement to her removal from the register. In signing the agreement, she also understood that any application for restoration to register would be treated as if she had been struck off the register as a result of the allegation. The practical effect of the agreement was that she could not re-apply for restoration to the register for at least five years and were she to reapply for restoration she would have to satisfy the registrar that the concerns before the panel had been addressed.

8. The Panel was satisfied that a voluntary removal from the register was in the wider public interest. The view of the Panel was that a reasonable member of the public with knowledge of the facts of the case would agree that the public interest was served by resolving the matter by agreement. The Panel was therefore satisfied that proceeding in this way would not undermine public confidence in the profession or the regulator. There was no detriment to the public interest.

9. The Panel therefore approved the agreement as an appropriate and practical means of disposal of the case, and that it was consistent with public safety and the public interest.

10. On that basis, the Panel approved the signed VRA dated 16 June 2022 and the Panel Chair signed the Notice of Withdrawal.

The Panel grants the application for voluntary removal and directs the Registrar to remove the name of Ms Rosamund Emerson from the Register

This was a Voluntary Removal Agreement hearing which took place via videoconference on 16 June 2022.

History of Hearings for Ms Rosamund Emerson