Manesi J T Chivhako

Preliminary Matters

Application to Amend

1. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Mansell, on behalf of the HCPC, applied to amend the allegation. He submitted that the application to amend was to clarify the allegation so as to better reflect the evidence. Mr Mansell explained that the proposed amendments would add the dates of the convictions in Particulars 1 and 2; add the dates of the offending conduct; and add the dates of the convictions themselves. In respect of Particulars 3 and 4, Mr Mansell explained that the proposed amendments would clarify the alleged dishonesty, namely that the Registrant had omitted to declare her 2010 convictions in her initial HCPC application for Registration in 2017; had failed to declare the convictions in a timely manner; and that she had done so dishonestly.

2. Mr Mansell submitted that there was no unfairness to the Registrant, as she had been on notice of the proposed amendments since 30 November 2022, and they did not materially change the nature of the allegation. He submitted that the proposed amendments did not expand the alleged misconduct, rather they sought to clarify the allegations, including the dishonesty.

3. Mr Mugwangi, on behalf of the Registrant, did not oppose the application to amend.

4. The Panel, having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, decided to allow the proposed amendments in their entirety. The Panel was satisfied that they did not seek to expand the scope of the allegations, but would clarify the allegation. Noting that Mr Munwangi did not object to the application to amend, the Panel did not consider that it would be unfair to the Registrant to allow the application to amend.
Parts of the Hearing to be Heard in Private

5. During the course of the Registrant’s evidence to the Panel, it became apparent that she would give evidence about personal and family matters. Having regard to the lack of objection from Mr Mansell and having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel decided to hear those parts of the hearing in private. The Panel was satisfied that this was justified in order to protect the Registrant’s private life.

Background

6. The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist. In an application form, dated 30 November 2017, she applied for Registration with the HCPC and was admitted to the Register. It is alleged that the Registrant did not declare convictions received in 2010 on her application form. On 19 October 2019, the Registrant renewed her registration with the HCPC. On her renewal form she made reference to a conviction for driving without insurance.

7. On 9 October 2020, the Registrant emailed the HCPC to explain that she had criminal convictions which she had not previously declared to the HCPC. The matter was treated as a self-referral of a fitness to practise matter and was investigated.

8. Particulars 1(i), 1(ii), and 1(iii) concern the Registrant, on 4 May 2010, being convicted after trial of three motoring offences, all of which occurred on 10 June 2009, namely failure to stop after an accident which caused injury, failing to report an accident which had caused an injury and driving without due care and attention. She was ordered to pay a fine and was disqualified from driving for three months.

9. Particulars 2(i) and 2(ii) concern the Registrant being convicted, on 18 January 2019, of two motoring offences, both of which occurred on 25 September 2018, namely driving on a provisional licence without being accompanied by a qualified driver or displaying ‘L’ plates, and driving without insurance. She was ordered to pay a fine and had her licence endorsed with 6 penalty points in respect of the no insurance.

10. Particular 3 concerns the Registrant not declaring her convictions to the HCPC in a timely manner. In relation to the 2010 convictions, it is alleged that the Registrant did not declare these in her initial application for HCPC registration, dated 30 November 2017. On 9 October 2020, the Registrant contacted the HCPC Registration Department by telephone to discuss how a conviction should be raised with the HCPC, and she was advised to submit the information to the HCPC’s Fitness to Practise Department. It is alleged that the Registrant took nearly three years to disclose her 2010 convictions to the HCPC, namely from her initial application on 30 November 2017 to her telephone call to the HCPC on 9 October 2020.

11. In relation to the 2019 convictions, it is alleged that it took the Registrant 9 months to inform the HCPC about the driving without insurance conviction, namely the period between the conviction on 18 January 2019 and the handwritten note on the renewal form of 16 October 2019. It is alleged that it took the Registrant 21 months to inform the HCPC about the conviction of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, namely the period between the conviction on 18 January 2019 and the telephone call to the HCPC on 9 October 2020. It is alleged that in each case the Registrant did not declare her convictions in a timely manner.

12. Particular 4 relates to the Registrant’s initial application for HCPC registration on 30 November 2017. It is alleged that when completing the form, the Registrant did not tick that she had any character declarations to make or that she had been convicted of any criminal offence.

13. Particular 5 alleges that the Registrant’s actions in respect of Particulars 3 and 4 was dishonest. It is alleged that the Registrant knew that she had the convictions and that she should declared them but chose not to do so.

Decision on Facts

14. The Panel was provided with a bundle of witness statements and exhibits provided on behalf of the HCPC in support of its case. The Panel heard evidence from MR, a Registration Manager employed by the HCPC, whose role involved responsibility for managing a team of registration advisers and the processes for applying for registration with the HCPC. The Panel was also provided with a witness statement from MJ, a Legal Assistant at Kingsley Napley LLP Solicitors, responsible for investigating fitness to practise cases on behalf of the HCPC. MJ produced the following exhibits:

a. The self-referral email from the Registrant, dated 9 October 2020;

b. Email from Registrant to HCPC regarding her failure to declare convictions, dated 13 November 2020;

c. DBS Certificate, dated 30 January 2020;

d. Disclosure Scotland PVG Record;

e. Email correspondence between the HCPC and the Registrant requesting information relating to the 2019 convictions;

f. Police summary from Northern Ireland Police Service regarding the 2010 convictions (MG5);

g. Record of police interview under caution regarding the 2010 convictions;

h. Witness statement of complainant taken by Police, dated 13 June 2009;

i. Certificate of conviction for the 2019 convictions from Hamilton Sheriff Court, Scotland; and

j. Certificates of conviction for the 2010 convictions from the Northern Ireland Magistrates’ Court.

15. The Registrant gave evidence on her own behalf.

16. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant made admissions to Particulars 1, 2, and 4.

17. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that the burden of proof is on the HCPC, and the required standard of proof is the civil standard, namely whether it is more likely than not that an event occurred. In relation to proof of a conviction the Legal Assessor advised that a Certificate of Conviction, or in Scotland, an extract of conviction was admissible of proof of that conviction and the finding of fact upon which it was based. In relation to dishonesty, she advised in accordance with the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67.

Particular 1

18. The Panel finds Particulars 1(i), 1(ii), and 1(iii) proved.

19. The Panel took account of the Certificates of Conviction from the Northern Ireland Magistrates’ Court, for each of the three offences of which the Registrant was convicted in 2010. It also had regard to the Registrant’s admission of these convictions. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been convicted on 4 May 2010 of the three offences which occurred on 10 June 2009.

Particular 2

20. The Panel finds Particular 2(i) and 2(ii) proved.

21. The Panel took account of the Extracts of Conviction from the Hamilton Sheriff Court, Scotland for both of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted in 2019. It also had regard to the Registrant’s admission of these convictions. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been convicted on 18 January 2019 of the two offences which occurred on 25 September 2018.

Particular 3

22. The Panel finds Particular 3 proved.

23. The Panel had regard to the Certificates and Extracts of Conviction; the occasions on which the convictions were disclosed to the HCPC; and the Registrant’s acceptance of the timeframes in which they were disclosed. In relation to the 2010 convictions, the Panel was satisfied that it was nearly three years until the Registrant declared them. In relation to the 2019 conviction of no insurance, the Panel was satisfied that it was 9 months until the Registrant declared them. In relation to the conviction of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, the Panel was satisfied that it was nearly 21 months until the Registrant declared them.

24. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (the Standards), Standard 9.5 which states: ‘you must tell us as soon as possible if: you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence’. In each case, the Panel did not consider that the timeframes in which the Registrant had declared her convictions were reasonable. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had not declared her convictions in a timely manner.

Particular 4

25. The Panel finds Particular 4 proved.

26. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s initial application form for HCPC registration, dated 30 November 2017, in which the Registrant had not ‘ticked’ the box in answer to the question: ‘have you been convicted of a criminal offence or received a police caution (other than a protected caution or protected conviction)?’. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had signed the declarations in the form, including confirming that she had read, understood and would comply with the HCPC Standards, and that the information provided in the application was correct. The Panel also had regard to the Registrant’s admission. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had not ‘ticked’ the box in response to the question about having criminal convictions.

Particular 5

27. The Panel finds Particular 5 not proved.

28. The Panel first considered the circumstances around the Registrant’s initial application for Registration with the HCPC on 30 November 2017 (Particular 4). It noted that the Registrant was a newly qualified Occupational Therapist, having obtained her degree at Caledonian University, in August 2017. The Panel also noted the difficult personal circumstances the Registrant was facing in her private life at around that time.

29. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence to the effect that each time she had undertaken a placement at university, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and Protecting Vulnerable Groups (PVG, Scotland) scheme checks were undertaken, which set out the Registrant’s convictions. The Panel noted that DBS and PVG Certificates undertaken in 2020 were included within the bundle. The Panel also accepted the Registrant’s evidence that before she had qualified as an Occupational Therapist, she had undertaken care/support worker roles which had also required DBS/PVG checks, and that her current employers were aware of her convictions. In light of this, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant had deliberately intended to conceal her convictions from the HCPC, noting that her university, the organisations with whom she had undertaken her placements and her current employers were aware of her convictions.

30. The Panel considered that as a prospective Registrant, even a newly qualified professional has the responsibility to adhere to the Standards and accurately complete the application form for admission to the Regulator’s professional register. The Panel went on to consider whether The Registrant’s failure to do so was more likely to have been dishonest as opposed to a stupid and negligent mistake. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had not taken the appropriate care and attention required to properly acquaint herself with the HCPC Guidance and Standards when completing her application form and the section relating to character. Nevertheless, the Panel was not satisfied the Registrant had deliberately sought to conceal her convictions from the HCPC, given that they were widely known at the university and in the workplace.

31. The Panel next went on to consider whether the Registrant’s actions in not declaring her convictions in a timely manner (Particular 3) were dishonest. The Panel considered that by the time of the Registrant’s renewal, she had been practising as an Occupational Therapist for a couple of years and would be expected to have more experience of the HCPC Standards and the importance of declaring convictions. In relation to the renewal form completed 16 October 2019, the Panel bore in mind that it asked whether there had been any changes to character since the last registration. It noted that it was alongside this declaration that the Registrant had handwritten ‘driving without insurance – conviction’ which the Panel noted appeared to be the more serious conviction as it had incurred the greater fine as well as the penalty points.

32. The Panel considered that following this renewal, the Registrant took steps, albeit following significant delay, to follow the Standards. The Panel accepted her evidence that she had re-read the Standards and had conversations with work colleagues. The Panel considered that these actions impressed upon her the importance of disclosing and declaring all convictions to the HCPC, including the older ones in 2010. Although she did not do this until October 2020, the Panel went on to consider whether this extensive delay was down to the Registrant being dishonest. The Panel bore in mind that it was the Registrant who had ultimately come forward to declare her convictions to the HCPC, as opposed to them being discovered. The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s actions in not declaring her convictions in a timely manner were in an effort to conceal them, or deliberately try to lessen their seriousness due to the passage of time.

33. In all the circumstances, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant’s actions would be considered dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

Decision on Grounds

Conviction

34. Having found the facts proved in respect of the Registrant’s convictions from 2010 and 2019, the Panel was satisfied that the convictions, in themselves, amounted to the statutory ground of conviction.

Misconduct

35. The Panel heard submissions from both Mr Mansell on behalf of the HCPC and from the Registrant on her own behalf. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It understood that for conduct to amount to professional misconduct it must fall short of what is expected in the circumstances and such a falling short must be serious, and fall far below those standards expected.

36. The Panel considered whether the facts found proved at Particulars 3 and 4 amounted to misconduct. In doing so, the Panel had regard to Standards 9.1 and 9.5 of the Standards, and Standards 2.2 and 3.1 of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Occupational Therapists (Proficiency Standards) as follows:

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if:
– you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence;

2.2 understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council;

3.1 understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.

37. The Panel considered that in each application for admission by a regulator to a professional register, the prospective Registrant is trusted to disclose and provide all relevant information in order for the Regulator to ascertain whether the prospective Registrant is a fit and proper person who would be capable of safe and effective practice. The Panel considered that admission to the register of a regulated profession would place a Registrant in a position of trust, with access to service users. The Panel was, therefore, mindful that prospective employers, service users and other members of the public would trust a Regulator to only allow admission to a professional Register following scrutiny of the application and being satisfied that the applicant met the required standards. Without accurate information, a Regulator would not be in a position to properly judge the applicant’s suitability for admission, which, in the Panel’s judgement risks undermining the integrity of the Register and public confidence in the Register and the profession.

38. In the Registrant’s case, the Panel bore in mind that the Registrant had repeatedly failed to declare her two sets of convictions in a timely manner. She had been admitted to and remained on the HCPC Register as an Occupational Therapist without having provided all relevant information for the HCPC to make an informed decision regarding her character.

39. The Panel noted the difficult personal circumstances experienced by the Registrant at the time. Nevertheless, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s failures to take the care and attention to adhere to the Standards in respect of declaring her convictions to the HCPC breached Standards 9.1 and 9.5 of the Standards and Standards 2.2 and 3.1 of the Proficiency Standards. In the Panel’s judgement, those breaches fell far below the Standards expected of a registered professional and were sufficiently serious as to amount to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

40. The Panel next went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired as a consequence of her conviction and/or her misconduct.

41. Mr Mansell submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired both by reason of her misconduct and by reason of her convictions. In respect of each, he submitted that she had demonstrated little insight and remediation and as a consequence there was a risk of repetition, such that she was impaired on the personal component. He further submitted that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of current impairment were made and that consequently her fitness to practise is impaired on the public component.

42. The Registrant gave further evidence to the Panel about her reflections. her understanding of the consequences of her actions, her current employment and the steps she had subsequently taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. She also provided two references to the Panel. Although neither referee specifically confirmed that they were aware of the HCPC allegations, the Panel accepted they were aware of them, given that they addressed her honesty and integrity. One of the references was from a long standing family friend attesting to the positive changes which the Registrant had made to her life, and their view of the Registrant’s integrity. The second reference was from a professional colleague, a Senior Occupational Therapist at the Registrant’s current place of work, dated 20 April 2023. The professional colleague had worked with the Registrant since May 2021 to date (excluding the period March 2022 to January 2023) and attested to the Registrant’s conduct in her current role, which included:
I have not been aware of any issues in [the Registrant’s] trustworthiness or professional integrity in relation to the vulnerable adults with whom we work, during her employment with us. [the Registrant] has worked with supervision where necessary and has accepted guidance in her practice within this complex clinical area.

43. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Convictions and Cautions. It also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Impairment, and in particular the two elements of impairment, namely the personal component and the public component.

44. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired by reason of her misconduct.

45. The Panel considered the ‘personal’ component.

46. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s misconduct was capable of being easily remedied, and, in the practical sense, the Registrant had taken steps to remediate. It was evident to the Panel that she was remorseful for her actions. The Panel noted that the Registrant had confirmed that she had re-read the Standards and that all relevant information about her had been disclosed and her workplace manager was aware of the HCPC proceedings and this hearing.

47. However, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s insight was sufficiently developed at this time. The Panel accepted that the Registrant was aware that the Standards required her to disclose relevant information to the HCPC, but it was concerned that she did not fully appreciate or understand why such disclosure about character was so important and what the impact may be on public confidence in the profession and the HCPC if a Registrant failed to make full and timely disclosures. The Panel did not consider that the Registrant had demonstrated that she understood that an employer relies on HCPC registration as a quality mark to the effect that a Registrant is capable of safe and effective practice. In light of this deficit in understanding, the Panel had a residual concern as to the risk of repetition.

48. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component by reason of her misconduct.

49. In relation to the ‘public’ component, the Panel was aware that consideration of fitness to practise requires a judgement to be made in respect of the wider public interest which includes not only the individual need to protect service users, but also the collective need to maintain public confidence in the profession as well as to declare and uphold the proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour which the public expect. The Panel considered that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in respect of the Registrant’s misconduct. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component by reason of the Registrant’s misconduct.

50. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired by reason of her convictions.

51. In relation to the 2010 convictions, relating to conduct dating back to 2009, the Panel noted that they occurred at a time before the Registrant had qualified as an Occupational Therapist. Whilst the events underpinning the convictions were serious, the Panel bore in mind that she had also since made positive changes in her personal life, which were confirmed by the personal character reference. The Panel also considered that the Registrant had demonstrated remorse for her actions and recognised that she wanted to be a good role model for her children. She had also described taking a course in conflict resolutions and ‘making peace’ with the complainant. The Panel also recognised that the 2010 convictions were now nearly 13 years old.

52. In relation to the personal component, the Panel considered that the Registrant had gained good insight into her actions resulting in the 2010 convictions, such that the risk of repetition of behaving in that way again was low. In relation to the public component, the Panel considered that given the passage of time, and that the convictions occurred before the Registrant was qualified, public confidence would not be undermined if no finding of current impairment were made in respect of the 2010 convictions.

53. In relation to the 2019 convictions, the Panel considered that the nature, circumstances and gravity of them were more significant than for the 2010 convictions. The Panel noted that these were not the first convictions received by the Registrant, and they were received at a time when the Registrant was an Occupational Therapist expected to adhere to professional standards and had been qualified for over a year.

54. The Panel considered the ‘personal’ component.

55. The Panel was satisfied that the conduct leading to the Registrant’s 2019 convictions was capable of remediation, and, in the practical sense, the Registrant had again taken steps to remediate, in that she now had a full licence and had set up alerts to remind her when her insurance was due for renewal.

56. However, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s insight was sufficiently developed at this time. The Panel was concerned that she did not appreciate the risk that she posed to other road users by taking the chance of driving alone on a provisional licence and without having the necessary insurance. The Panel did not consider that she had demonstrated that she understood that her actions exposed other drivers or pedestrians to the risk of an accident with no recourse of compensation from her due to the lack of insurance. The Panel also considered that the Registrant had not demonstrated a full understanding of the potential impact on public confidence in the profession of a Registrant having such convictions.

57. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component by reason of her 2019 convictions.

58. In relation to the ‘public’ component, the Panel considered that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in respect of the Registrant’s 2019 convictions. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel bore in mind that they were not her first set of convictions; they had arisen when she had been qualified for over a year; and they were of a type which exposed other road users to risk. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component by reason of her 2019 convictions.

Decision on Sanction

59. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of both misconduct and the 2019 convictions, the Panel went on to consider whether it was impaired to a degree which required action to be taken on her registration.

60. The Panel took account of the submissions of Mr Mansell on behalf of the HCPC and those given on behalf of the Registrant by Mr Mugwangi. It also had regard to all the evidence it heard and all of the material previously before it.

61. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it exercised its independent judgement. It had regard to the Sanctions Policy (the Policy) and considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel was aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the public interest which includes upholding standards within the profession, together with maintaining public confidence in the profession and its regulatory process.

62. Before considering the individual options open to the Panel in respect of sanction, it considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating features in this case.

63. The Panel considered the following to be the relevant mitigating factors:

• The Registrant has shown a degree of insight and remediation;

• The Registrant has apologised and demonstrated remorse for her actions;

• The Registrant was experiencing challenging personal circumstances at the time;

• The Panel has the benefit of two positive testimonials attesting to the Registrant’s character now in respect of both her professional and personal life.

64. The Panel considered the following to be the relevant aggravating factors:

• The misconduct represented a breach of trust regarding the professional declarations of character required of the Registrant;

• There was a repetition of the non-disclosure of her convictions.

65. The Panel first considered whether a sanction was necessary. It was of the view that this case was too serious to take no action, in particular given its findings of misconduct and impairment, where it identified the risk of undermining confidence in the integrity of the HCPC Register through non-disclosure of relevant character information to the Regulator. The Panel concluded that such a course would send the wrong message to the public and that some form of sanction was necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

66. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Caution Order. It had regard to paragraph 101 of the Policy which states:

A Caution Order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:

• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;

• there is a low risk of repetition;

• the registrant has shown good insight; and

• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

67. The Panel did not consider that this was a case where the issues had been isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature. On the contrary, the Panel considered that the case encompassed two statutory grounds, namely misconduct and conviction and the misconduct had been repeated. In addition, whilst the Panel had identified that the Registrant had demonstrated a degree of insight and remediation into her misconduct and the 2019 convictions, the Panel had considered that there was a deficit in her understanding as to the impact of her actions. Furthermore, the Panel did not consider that a Caution Order would act as a deterrent to fellow practitioners and reaffirm the importance of ensuring accurate, full and timely disclosures to their Regulator in accordance with professional standards. Accordingly, the Panel was not satisfied that a Caution Order was the appropriate or proportionate response.

68. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order may be the appropriate and proportionate response. The Panel acknowledged that there were no issues with the Registrant’s clinical practice; this had been attested to by the Senior Occupational Therapist at the Registrant’s place of work. Nevertheless, the Panel identified a number of specific areas whereby the Registrant’s remediation was incomplete. These were specific training in professional ethics to assist her learning in professional regulation; sufficient reflection to achieve good insight into the importance of professional regulation and evidence of its application in the workplace and reflection on the potential risks involved in driving otherwise than in accordance with your license and not having insurance.

69. The Panel was of the view that appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions could be formulated to address those three areas. Mr Mugwangi, on the Registrant’s behalf, also confirmed that the Registrant’s manager would support the Registrant if she were made subject to conditions.

70. The Panel was satisfied that the public would not be put at risk for the period that the Registrant was on conditions. In addition, the Panel considered that that members of the public would be reassured by a Conditions of Practice Order which involved the Registrant addressing the deficits in her insight, so as to give her the opportunity to achieve full remediation, but at the same time allowing her to practise in her profession.

71. The Panel decided to make the Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 12 months so as to allow the Registrant time to locate and complete the identified training; to reflect on the learning from the course; and to put the learning into practice in the workplace; and that this was carried out alongside the Registrant’s family circumstances.

72. In order to satisfy itself that conditions were appropriate and proportionate, the Panel went on to consider a Suspension Order. The Panel considered that this would be wholly disproportionate in the circumstances of this case, given that the Registrant had demonstrated remorse, a degree of insight and remediation, and had assured the Panel that she took full responsibility for her actions.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that, for a period of 12 months from the date that this Order takes effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Ms Manesi J T Chivakho must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1. Within 4 months of the Operative Date you must:

A. Satisfactorily complete the course in Ethics and Ethical Standards for HCPC professionals or similar course; and

B. Forward documentary proof of completion of the same to the HCPC.

2. You must, before this Conditions of Practice Order is reviewed, provide a written reflective piece addressing the concerns identified by the Panel regarding your insight relating to the misconduct and the 2019 convictions.

3. You must, before this Conditions of Practice Order is reviewed, provide a report from your workplace supervisor, who must be a registered professional, outlining how you have put into practice your learning regarding the importance of professional regulation.

4. You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.

5. Any condition requiring you to provide information to the HCPC is to be met by you sending the information to the offices of the HCPC marked for the attention of the relevant Case Manager.

Interim Order

1. Mr Mansell, on behalf of the HCPC applied for an Interim Conditions of Practice Order to cover the appeal period before the substantive Conditions of Practice Order comes into effect or if the Registrant appeals, until such time as the appeal is withdrawn or otherwise finally disposed of. He applied on the ground of public protection and otherwise in the public interest.

2. Mr Murwangi did not make any submissions.

3. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public and was otherwise in the public interest, for the same reasons as set out in the substantive decision, given that it had found that the Registrant had not achieved a sufficient level of insight and remediation, such that a residual risk of repetition remained. In particular, the Panel also considered that an Interim Order was also required to promote and maintain public confidence in the profession to maintain standards for the same reasons as set out in the substantive decision.

4. Having concluded that an order is necessary to protect the public the Panel considered what type of Interim Order to impose. For the same reasons as set out in the substantive decision, the Panel concluded that conditions could be formulated which would not put the public at risk, but would allow the Registrant to practise alongside her efforts to achieve good insight and fully remediate her practice.

5. In all the circumstances the Panel decided to make an Interim Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 18 months. In deciding this length it took into account the fact that any appeal may take a considerable period of time.

Interim Conditions of Practice Order:

The Panel makes an Interim Conditions of Practice 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.

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 Manesi J T Chivhako