John P Husband

Preliminary Matters
1. The Panel has been convened to undertake the final, substantive hearing of the HCPC’s allegations against the Registrant, Mr John Paul Husband, an Occupational Therapist.

Service of the Notice of Hearing
2. As the Registrant was not present at the hearing, the Panel considered whether he had been given notice of the hearing in a proper manner. Having considered the unredacted service documentation, the Panel was satisfied that the email sent to the Registrant on 3 August 2022 satisfied the service requirements.

Proceeding in the Registrant’s absence
3. After the Panel stated that it was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly served with a notice of hearing, the Presenting Officer applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel retired to consider the application in private, acknowledging that a decision to continue would not be one it would be proper to take lightly. Having considered the factors identified in the relevant HCPTS Practice Note, the conclusion of the Panel was that the hearing should continue. The reasons for this decision were as follows:
• On 28 August 2022, the Registrant replied to the notice of hearing email, thanking the Listings Officer for sending it, and stating, “I will not be attending the hearing or seeking representation.” On the basis of this communication the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant knew that the hearing was to be held and had voluntarily waived his right to attend it.
• The Registrant did not seek an adjournment of the present hearing or suggest in any other way that he would attend a hearing on a future occasion if it did not proceed at the present time.
• Any disadvantage arising from the Registrant’s absence would be mitigated by the fact that he had provided written submissions for the consideration of the Panel, something he indicated in his email sent on 28 August 2022 he would do.
• In these circumstances the Panel found that the public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case required the present hearing to proceed.

Part of the hearing to be conducted in private
4. Before outlining the HCPC’s case, the Presenting Officer applied for a direction that any reference to the Registrant’s health or personal relationships should be treated as being given during a private session of the hearing. The Panel acceded to this application on the basis that it was necessary to make the direction sought to preserve the Registrant’s private life.

Amendment of the allegation
5. There were two errors in the formal allegation. By the stem of particular 1 it was alleged that the Registrant had been convicted at Newcastle Crown Court on 29 September 2021. In fact the conviction was recorded at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court on that date, on which occasion the Magistrates declined jurisdiction to deal with the case further and committed the Registrant to the Crown Court, in which Court he was sentenced on 27 October 2021. The second error was that in particular 1(e), the number “6” had appeared in the body of the sub-particular, suggesting that more than a single image was involved. The Presenting Officer accepted that these two matters represented errors and that they should be corrected by amendment. The Panel agreed that they should be corrected, finding that there would be no prejudice to the Registrant who had been present at Court on 29 September 2021, and was aware of the offences he had admitted. The amendment as it is set out at the head of this document is the allegation as amended.

Dual allegation
6. The decision of the Investigating Committee made on 23 February 2022 was that there was a case to answer in relation to three distinct categories of allegation, as it alleged that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of, (i) the conviction set out in particular 1; (ii) the misconduct alleged by particulars 2 and 4; and (iii) impaired health, as alleged by particular 3 and Schedule A. As such it amounted to a “dual allegation”, as it involves issues that could be considered by the Conduct and Competence Committee (the conviction and misconduct) and the Health Committee (the health issue). The Investigating Committee referred the matter to the Conduct and Competence Committee for hearing. Therefore, applying the guidance contained in the HCPC’s guidance document revised in June 2021, whereas the Panel would be entitled to have regard to health issues in considering the conviction and misconduct allegations, it would not be deciding the health allegation. Any further directions concerning the health allegation would await the disposal of the conviction and misconduct allegations.
Background

7. On 25 June 2020, the Registrant referred himself to the HCPC. His email sent that day included the following, “I wish to report myself to the FTP. I was arrested yesterday and am under investigation for alleged possession of prohibited images.” It is the events that followed that referral that underpin the two allegations that the present Panel is charged with deciding.

Decision on Facts
8. The Panel approached its decision on the facts by accepting the advice it received that it had to be satisfied that there was evidence (that might be written evidence) from which it could be said that the HCPC had discharged the obligation to prove matters on the balance of probabilities. The factual matters that needed to be decided were:
• Whether the Registrant was convicted as alleged by particular 1 of the amended allegation;
• Whether it had been demonstrated that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC about the conviction in respect of the offences.

The Conviction
9. The Panel was provided with a copy of the Certificate of Conviction provided by the Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court dated 10 December 2021, and also a transcript of the proceedings in that same Court on 27 October 2021, when the Registrant appeared to be sentenced. On the basis of these documents, the Panel finds that the HCPC has discharged the burden of proving the fact of the conviction in relation to the offences set out in particular 1(a) to (e).

Informing the HCPC of the conviction
10. There was no explicit evidence from the HCPC that the Registrant did not disclose the conviction. The hearing bundle contained a hint that it was believed that the renewal of his registration demonstrated a non-disclosure because it contained an exchange of emails between 8 December 2021 between a Case Manager and an HCPC employee whose role was described as Test Manager & System Support relating to the dates of the Registrant’s registration. Although this exchange disclosed that the Registrant had applied for renewal and had made a declaration relating to his health, he made it on 2 August 2021, a date before his conviction. In the view of the Panel this did not provide the HCPC with positive evidence that the Registrant did not notify the HCPC of his conviction.

11. The Presenting Officer very properly informed the Panel of documents provided by the Registrant of which it was previously unaware, specifically emails dated 28 September 2021 and 4 October 2021. In the former, the Registrant wrote, “I am appearing at Newcastle Magistrates court tomorrow where I hope to get an opportunity to see the CPS documents and have legal advice. I will of course inform you of the outcome, but my solicitors think it is likely the Magistrates Court will decline jurisdiction and my case will be allocated to the Crown Court.” In the email sent on 4 October 2021, the Registrant included the following, “I attended the Magistrates Court last Wednesday and I am taking responsibility for the charges made against me and am indicating a guilty plea with a case of mitigation. The magistrates passed further action and judgment to the Crown Court. My hearing there will be on 27th October. I have unconditional bail.” These emails were consistent with others that had been provided to the Panel in the hearing bundle, and demonstrated that the Registrant had, consistently and appropriately, kept the HCPC informed of matters.

12. Although the Presenting Officer, again properly, acknowledged the difficulties these documents created for the HCPC’s case in relation to particular 2, she nevertheless informed the Panel that her instructions were that the HCPC wished the Panel to make a decision on the matter.

13. In the view of the Panel, the emails sent by the Registrant to the HCPC provide a compete answer to the allegation contained in particular 2. It is not proved.

Decision on Grounds
14. The ground in relation to the conviction allegation is indistinguishable from the factual finding that the Registrant was indeed convicted as alleged.

15. As the sole matter relied upon as misconduct has not been factually established, there is no issue for the Panel to consider in relation to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment
16. The task for the Panel is to decide if the fact of the conviction, and the factual matters upon which it was based, are currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise. To reach that decision the Panel paid close attention to the HCPTS Practice Note on the topic, and considered both the personal and public components of impairment.

17. With regard to the personal component, the Panel began by considering whether the issue is one that is remediable. In the view of the Panel, behaviour of the sort underpinning the conviction is extremely difficult to remediate. Very serious images were concerned, there were very large numbers of images, and the behaviour continued over many years. It therefore represented what can only sensibly be regarded as a deep-seated inclination on the part of the Registrant. When the Panel addressed the question of whether the Registrant had in fact remediated his behaviour, the Panel accepted that he had taken some positive steps, for example, by engaging with “Stop It Now!” and involvement in the measures required by the sentence imposed on him. There was evidence of some, limited, reflection on the part of the Registrant. However, the Panel concluded that he had not fully remediated for the following reasons:
• The only explanation offered for his behaviour was his personal circumstances, a factor the Panel does not accept can explain either the period of time over which matters continued or the scale of the offending.
• As recently as 3 February 2022, when he wrote to the an agency, the Registrant wrote, “I am still trying to understand why I collected these images.”
• The Registrant’s submissions do not adequately reflect an acknowledgment of the actual or potential effect of his behaviour on others. The Registrant qualified as an Occupational Therapist in 1993, and as part of his training and subsequent practice had undergone safeguarding training that would have alerted him to the consequences of this type of behaviour/ conduct. In addition, the Panel noted that the Registrant had worked in acute mental health services.
• Reviewing the totality of the information provided, the Panel has come to the same conclusion as the sentencing Judge who stated, “….. I am not certain that there is any more remorse than the fact that you have been captured.”

18. In circumstances where, as here, there is incomplete insight and an absence of full remediation, a significant risk of repetition is present. That risk presented by an Occupational Therapist translates to a risk of harm to service users, and in turn that requires a finding of impairment of fitness to practise so far as the personal component is concerned.

19. So far as the public component is concerned, these offences are very serious for the reasons already stated. The sentence imposed of 22 months imprisonment reflects their seriousness. The period of suspension of that sentence still has more than a year to run, and both the registration with the police as a sex offender and the Sexual Harm Prevention Order have more than nine years left to run. In the light of these factors, the Panel is satisfied that fair-minded members of the public would be horrified were it to be suggested that an Occupational Therapist could return to unrestricted practice even if there was not the significant risk of repetition the Panel finds there to be. Furthermore, the Panel would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper professional standards were it to not to reach a finding of impairment of fitness to practise. For all these reasons, such a finding is also required with regard to the public component.

20. The consequence of the finding that the conviction is currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise is that the issue of sanction must be considered.

Decision on Sanction
21. After the Panel handed down the decision set out above explaining why the conviction allegation is well founded, it allowed the Presenting Officer time to consider the written determination before receiving her submissions on sanction.

22. When she made her submissions, the Presenting Officer acknowledged that it was customary for the HCPC not to make a positive submission as to the sanction required. In the present case, however, she submitted that a positive case would be advanced. The Presenting Officer drew the attention of the Panel to a passage on the Case Summary included in the hearing bundle that stated under the heading “Impairment”, “The Registrant remains subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years, in place until October 2031, which is not compatible with remaining on the HCPC register”, and she submitted that this was also relevant to the issue of sanction. The Presenting Officer also took the Panel to passages in the HCPC Sanctions Policy which were applicable to the case. The Presenting Officer submitted on behalf of the HCPC that this is a case in which a striking off order should be made.

23. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that a sanction should not be imposed to punish the Registrant. A sanction should be no more severe than is required to meet the proper sanction goals of protection of the public, maintaining public confidence and the declaration and upholding of proper professional standards. To ensure that these principles are observed it is necessary to consider the available sanctions in an ascending order of seriousness. The Panel has considered, accepted and applied the guidance contained in the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. As the conviction allegation is well founded, the entire sanction range up to, and including, striking off is available.

24. Before considering the available sanctions, the Panel assessed the factors that make this a serious case, and also assessed the factors that can properly be taken into account in favour of the Registrant.

25. The Panel does not intend to repeat all that has already been stated, but it is necessary to summarise the factors that have a particular relevance to the sanction to be imposed:
• By the nature of the work they do, Occupational Therapists work with people who, for different reasons, are vulnerable.
• The Registrant’s behaviour was very serious particularly in view of the nature of the images involved, the number of the images involved and the fact that the behaviour continued for many years.
• There is a risk that the Registrant will repeat behaviour of the sort he indulged in. That risk would necessarily translate into a risk of harm to patients were the Registrant to be able to return to practise as an Occupational Therapist.
• At present, and for a little over another year, the Registrant is subject to a suspended term of imprisonment. For over nine years he will be required to register as a sex offender and will be subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

26. In the Registrant’s favour, the following can be said:
• He entered guilty pleas to the criminal charges at the earliest opportunity.
• He has co-operated with the HCPC, and not sought to minimise the significance of the convictions for him as a registered health professional. Indeed, by his response to a pro forma dated 15 March 2022, and again in his letter to the Panel dated 28 August 2022, he refers to his name being removed from the HCPC Register.
• He has informed the HCPC that he has undertaken some steps towards addressing his past behaviour, for example, by engaging with “Stop It Now!”.

27. When it considered the Sanctions Policy, the Panel considered that there were particular elements of it that applied to this case before it turned to consider the guidance relating to specific sanctions. These elements were:
• Paragraph 82, “Where a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, and is still serving a sentence at the time the matter comes before a panel, normally the panel should not allow the registrant to resume unrestricted practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed.”
• Paragraphs 87 to 89 refer to indecent images of children. Paragraph 89 states “Any offence relating to indecent images of children involves some degree of exploitation of a child, and so a conviction for such an offence is a very serious matter. In particular, it undermines the public’s trust in registrants and public confidence in the profession concerned and is likely to lead to a more severe sanction.”

28. With these matters in mind, the Panel turned to consider the specific sanctions. This is a case in which a sanction is required; it would not be appropriate to pass from the case without imposing one. A caution order would not reflect the seriousness of the case or address the factors outlined in paragraph 25 above. Furthermore, the Panel agreed with the guidance contained in paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy that a conditions of practice order would not be appropriate in this case; the issue could not be addressed by any conditions placed on the Registrant’s practice, and public confidence would not be satisfied by such an order.

29. It follows that the Panel considered whether a suspension order would be appropriate, and in this regard considered paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy. The present case is a serious one, but that factor apart, it does not meet any of the other factors that it is suggested would be expected for a case to result in the making of a suspension order; the Registrant lacks full insight, the behaviour/ conduct is likely to be repeated, and there is an absence of evidence to suggest that the Registrant will be likely to be able to resolve or remedy his failings. There is a further issue. Absent further criminal offending, the Registrant’s sentence of imprisonment would be behind him by the end of a period of suspension, but the two ancillary orders to which reference has already been made (namely registration as a sex offender and the Sexual Harm Prevention Order) would still have eight years to run. As has already been stated, the continuation of those orders would be incompatible with a return to practice. For all these reasons, the Panel considered that a suspension order was not appropriate.

30. The Panel therefore considered striking off, and in that context reviewed the factors identified in paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy, which, so far as relevant to this case, reads as follows, “A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate ….. acts involving ……. indecent images of children ….” Such is the seriousness of this case, and so significant are the continuing elements of the sentence imposed on the Registrant in the Crown Court, that the Panel considers that this is a case where the threshold for making a striking off order has been reached.

31. In reaching its decision that a striking off order should be made, the Panel acknowledged the seriousness so far as the Registrant is concerned, but the gravity of the case is such that it is a proportionate response to the Panel’s findings because no lesser sanction would meet the factors a sanction is required to address.

The secondary health allegation
32. Consistent with the guidance contained in the final paragraph of headed “Approach to dual allegations”, revised in June 2021, the Panel says no more about the secondary, health allegation as it will fall away as a consequence of the striking off order.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr John Paul Husband from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order
Application
1. After the Panel announced the decision that the sanction to be imposed would be a striking off order, the Presenting Officer applied for an 18 month interim suspension order to cover the period before the striking off order comes into effect while the Registrant’s appeal rights are extant. The application was on the grounds (i) that it is necessary for protection of members of the public, and (ii) that it is otherwise in the public interest.

2. The Panel accepted the advice it received that before it could consider the merits of the application, it would be necessary to address two preliminary matters, namely (i) to be satisfied that it would have jurisdiction to make the order sought, and (ii) that it would be appropriate to consider the matter in the absence of the Registrant.

3. As to the former, the notice of hearing email sent on 3 August 2022 stated, under the heading “Interim Orders”, the following, “Please note that if the Panel finds the case against you is well founded and imposes a sanction which removes, suspends or restricted your right to practise, it may also impose an interim order on you (under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001). An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect.” The Panel is satisfied that this afforded the Registrant an opportunity to make representations on the issue, and that accordingly the Panel has jurisdiction to consider the matter.

4. As to whether it would be appropriate to consider the application in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel concluded that it would be. The factors already described in relation to proceeding with the substantive hearing apply equally to this application. By the very nature of the order sought, there is a clear public interest in considering the issue without undue delay and there are no grounds on which the Panel could assume the Registrant would wish to make representations as to why an order should not be made if he was given an opportunity to do so.

5. So far as the merits of the application are concerned, the Panel accepted that the default position established by the legislation is that when a substantive sanction is imposed there should be no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain outstanding. It follows that there must be a positive case why this default position should be departed from. Any relevant factors should be assessed by reference to the grounds that can justify the making of an interim order, which in the circumstances of the present case are two, namely (i) that it is necessary for protection of members of the public, and (ii) that it is otherwise in the public interest.

6. When the Panel considered whether those two grounds were met in the present case, it concluded that they were. For the reasons already explained, the Registrant presents as a risk of repeating inappropriate behaviour, and that risk has clear implications for patient, and therefore public, safety. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that fair-minded members of the public would consider that the findings in this case are of such a degree of seriousness that they should be addressed by an interim order while appeal rights remain outstanding. It follows from these findings that an interim order is required.

7. The Panel considered whether the interim order could be imposed as one of interim conditions of practice, but concluded that it could not for the reasons already explained in relation to a substantive conditions of practice order. It follows that the Panel decided that an interim suspension order is required in the present case.

8. As to the length of the interim order, the Panel determined that it should be for the maximum period of 18 months. An order of that length will not prejudice the Registrant; the order will fall away automatically if he does not appeal within the initial 28 days period, but, if he does appeal, it could take 18 months for the appeal to be finally determined.

Decision
9. 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.

10. 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.

History of Hearings for John P Husband