Sheena Bronwen Thorpe Sprakes
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
The allegation against you is as follows:
As a registered Paramedic your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction and a physical or health condition. In that:
1. You have health condition(s) as set out in Schedule A.
2. On 24 January 2020, you were convicted at Swindon Magistrates’ of an offence, namely, driving a motor vehicle on 2 January 2020 having consumed alcohol and being in excess of the prescribed alcohol limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
3. By reason of your health and/or conviction, your fitness to practise is impaired.
Schedule A:
i. REDACTED;
ii. REDACTED;
iii. REDACTED.
Finding
Preliminary matters
Service:
1. The Panel saw the Notice of today’s hearing which was emailed on 26 May 2022 to the Registrant’s email address as shown on the HCPC Register.
2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
3. The Panel was satisfied that, taking into account all the circumstances, 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:
4. Mr Danks, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
5. 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.
6. In an email dated 13 June 2022, from the HCPC to the Registrant, there was a reference to a telephone conversation with the Registrant, which reflected the Registrant’s awareness of today’s hearing as well as her expectation that she would not be attending today.
7. 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). On the basis of the information before it, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant had voluntarily waived her right to attend and expected that the hearing will proceed in her 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.
Part of the Hearing in Private
8. Mr Danks applied for any parts of the hearing, which made reference to the Registrant’s health, to proceed in private.
9. 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 those parts of the hearing which referred to the Registrant’s health should be in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules.
Background
10. The Registrant is a registered paramedic. At the relevant time, she was employed by South West Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust).
11. On or around 26 February 2020, the HCPC received an anonymous referral in relation to the Registrant. The referral outlined that the Registrant had been convicted of drink driving but had continued to drink heavily. The HCPC also received a letter of self-referral from the Registrant, declaring that she had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol on 24 January 2020, which had led to her disqualification from driving. The Panel noted from the Certificate of Conviction that she was disqualified for 17 months, to be reduced by 129 days if a suitable driving rehabilitation course was completed by the Registrant.
12. As a result of the referral, an investigation was undertaken by the HCPC. The Investigating Committee Panel ('ICP') considered the matter on 26 October 2021. The ICP determined there to be a case to answer in respect of the Allegation as set out above and referred the allegation to the Conduct & Competence Committee.
13. By a Consensual Disposal Request dated 13 March 2022 the Registrant asked to be voluntarily removed from the HCPC's register. Within this request, the Registrant accepted all of the particulars of the allegation referred by the ICP and that her fitness to practise was currently impaired by reason of her health, and conviction.
14. The Registrant signed the Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA) on the 10 June 2022, and the VRA was signed on behalf of the HCPC on 16 June 2022. In signing the VRA the Registrant thereby accepted the Allegation, that her current fitness to practise is impaired and confirmed that she has no intention of returning to practise.
Decision
15. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Danks 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 Danks 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. The Panel had regard to the HCPC’s skeleton argument dated 20 June 2022 and the HCPC hearing bundle.
17. The Panel has seen the VRA document signed by both parties. In the VRA the Registrant admits the Allegation and undertakes not to practise as a Paramedic or use any protected title associated with that profession.
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 evidence from the Trust, and the medical evidence before it, including the Occupational Health Reports as well as the Health Reference Form from the Registrant’s GP dated 19 January 2021.
21. As part of this investigation, the Trust explained that the Registrant had received significant support from it in attending appointments at her General Practitioner (‘GP’) and at hospital.
22. The HCPC obtained a Witness statement from a colleague of the Registrant at the Trust which set out the Registrant's long- standing health issues, which had adversely impacted on her role as a paramedic.
23. A Health Reference Form, dated 19 January 2021, from the Registrant's GP was also obtained. This form stated that the Registrant has a physical or mental health condition that affects her ability to practise safely and effectively.
24. 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.
25. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has had it explained to her 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 21 June 2022.
26. The Panel was also satisfied that the public would be protected by the removal of the Registrant from the Register, as it would have the same effect as if she had been struck off the Register.
27. The Panel took into account that the Registrant’s adverse health was clearly at the core of the concerns raised about her, and there was a single conviction, which was apparently linked to her health. It was clear to the Panel that this was not therefore a case which required an examination, at a final hearing, as to the demands of the public interest.
28. 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 and a final hearing is not required to maintain public confidence and declare and uphold standards. Rather, in the Panel’s view, the public interest would be served by the expeditious resolution provided by the VRA.
29. The Panel noted from the Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent that where an order such as an interim 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 Interim Suspension Order was revoked.
30. For all these reasons, the Panel revoked the current Interim Suspension Order and approved the VRA signed by the parties.
Order
The current Interim Suspension Order is revoked and the Voluntary Removal Agreement is approved.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Sheena Bronwen Thorpe Sprakes
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24/06/2022 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Voluntary Removal Agreement | Voluntary Removal agreed |