Anthony Rice

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. On 28 October 2022, a Notice of Hearing informing the Registrant of the Health Committee’s intention to review the Suspension Order, under Article 30 of the Health Professions Order 2011, was sent by e-mail to the Registrant’s registered e-mail address. The Panel noted the body of the email states the date as 29 October 2022 in the top right hand corner, but concludes this is clearly an error given the email itself is sent on 28 October 2022. This was sent to his registered email address ending with ‘yahoo.com’.
2. This notice informed the date of the hearing as 29 November 2022. This was also stated in the Notice of Hearing dated 1 November 2022, which informed the date of the hearing as 29 November 2022. It is understood further emails were sent as the Registrant had provided 3 different email addresses to the HCPC for purposes of communications.
3. The Legal Assessor provided legal advice and this was accepted. Service by e-mail is a permitted method of service under the Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus)(Amendment) Rules Order of Council 2021. The HCPC is required to prove that the Notice of Hearing was sent in accordance with the Rules, but there is no requirement to prove that the Registrant received that Notice.
4. The email of 28 October 2022 does comply with Rule 13(1) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Health Committee)(Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”) which requires the HCPC to inform the Registrant that the Order will be reviewed and he has a right to appear and be represented. Accordingly service had been effected.
5. The Panel did consider Rule 13(3) of the Rules, which states if the Registrant wished to appear he must notify the HCPC of his intention within 28 days. No such request has been received from the Registrant.
6. The Panel placed little weight on the notification to the Registrant stating the incorrect hearing date as being on 29 November 2022 (as opposed to 30 November 2022) as the Rules only require communicating an intention to review the Order. The date is only required to be set if the Registrant intends to attend. Service still remained effective. The Registrant was provided with the correct date of the hearing by email on 10 November 2022 and still did not respond or seek to attend the hearing.
7. The Panel noted that the HCPC received a notification on 28 October and 10 November 2022 that the notice of hearing sent to the Registrant by e-mail “couldn’t be delivered”. There is only a requirement to send the notice and receipt is not relevant to the decision on effective service.
8. The Panel confirmed that the e-mail address on the Notice of Hearing dated 28 October 2022 was the Registrant’s current one registered with the HCPC. Service was therefore deemed to be effective. There is a duty upon registrants to update the HCPC with their current contact details.
9. The Panel was satisfied that good service had been effected in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant

10. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Panel should proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant under Rule 11 of the Rules. She stated the Registrant had failed to engage with the HCPC process and reminded the Panel that he had failed to attend on previous hearings. It was her view that adjourning would not serve any useful purpose as attendance will not be likely at a further hearing.
11. The Panel noted there was no response from the Registrant. However, the Panel were able to take account of the last communication from him, which was his response in advance of last year’s review hearing. In his email of 24 November 2021, the Registrant stated:
“Thank you for your paperwork and inviting me to attend a hearing via video conference. I confirm I won’t be participating. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an unwillingness to engage, ostensibly I am engaging now by writing an email that I don’t need to write. Its just that I have no need to be on the register. So fully engaging would be rather like going into Tesco when you don’t need anything and you don’t want anything. …
I do not miss in any way shape or form being a paramedic nor will I ever do it again or work in healthcare ever again so therefore the outcome of the registration whatever you decide will be meaningless to me”

12. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. The Panel exercised its discretion with the utmost care and caution.
13. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had made all reasonable efforts to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Registrant.
14. In reaching a decision on the application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, the Panel has weighed up the competing factors. 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. This had last been reviewed a year ago on 29 November 2021. The current order is due to expire in less than a month on 25 December 2022. This is a mandatory review. It was in the public interest to deal with the matter today.
• The Registrant had not sought to attend. The Panel had taken into account the past representations made by the Registrant on 24 November 2021 before the previous review hearing. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself.
• The Panel concluded that adjourning would serve no useful purpose. The Panel considered that it was unlikely the Registrant would participate in a hearing if it were to be adjourned to a later date.
• 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 outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that the review of the current suspension order is considered expeditiously. It is also in the Registrant’s interest and in the interests of justice that the mandatory review takes place as soon as possible.

Hearing in private

16. Ms Khorassani made an application for the whole hearing to be heard in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules to protect the Registrant’s private life.
17. The Panel noted the application by the HCPC for this hearing be heard in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, which provides that “proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional... the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing”.
18. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private. Although hearings are usually heard in public, the Rules allow for the hearing to be in private where this would protect the private life of the Registrant.
19. The Panel decided that it was appropriate for the entire hearing to be heard in private. The Allegation and all the background matters concern or relate to the Registrant’s health. The Panel was unable to identify any part of the hearing which could be heard in public, while protecting the Registrant’s private life. The Application to hear the whole hearing in private was granted.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Antony G Rice from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

History of Hearings for Anthony Rice