Dr Jonathan Wain

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel has been convened to consider an application made jointly by the HCPC and the Registrant, Dr Jonathan Wain, a Practitioner Psychologist, that effect should be given to an agreement for voluntary removal of the Registrant from the HCPC Register.

Part of the hearing to be conducted in private

2. The Presenting Officer applied for a direction that part of the hearing should be conducted in private. This application was because it would be necessary to discuss the Registrant’s health. That being so, part of the hearing should be conducted in private to protect the Registrant’s private life. The Panel acceded to the application on the basis on which it was sought. It should also be noted that the Panel has produced two written determinations, the public version being redacted in order to remove information concerning the Registrant’s health.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

3. The Panel was satisfied that the email sent to the Registrant on 29 June 2023 informing him that this hearing had been scheduled amounted to good service.

4. After the Panel decided that there had been good service of the notice of hearing, the Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel acceded to that application. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had knowledge that this hearing was due to take place. The notice of hearing email was forwarded by the HCPC’s Solicitors to the Registrant’s private email address and the formal agreement document signed by the Registrant included today’s date as the “operative date” on which it was intended that the agreement would take effect if permitted by the Panel. On a number of occasions, the Registrant had made it clear that he did not wish to be involved in this fitness to practise process, and the Panel concluded that the fact that he did not appear at this hearing represented a deliberate decision on his part. Furthermore, the Panel considered that this was a case in which the Registrant’s position had been made very clear; not only had be completed the formal documentation, but he had provided the appendix document referred to in paragraph 14 below. Finally, the formal documentation that had been executed by both the HCPC and the Registrant were dated to take effect today. If the hearing did not proceed today, it would be necessary for the documentation to be re-executed for the application to be considered, something that would not be in the Registrant’s interests. All of these factors combined to satisfy the Panel that the hearing should proceed notwithstanding the Registrant’s absence from it.

Background

5. From 2006 until he resigned in May 2021, the Registrant was employed as a Clinical Psychologist by Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”).

6. On 11 March 2021, the Trust’s Professional Lead for Learning Disability Clinical Psychology sent to the HCPC a referral concerning the Registrant. Three broad areas of concern were included in the referral, namely, (i) issues with timeliness, particularly with regard to the completion of clinical notes; (ii) concerns about the standard to which the Registrant was working, written work not always being completed to a satisfactory standard, and an apparent inability to act on guidance provided by senior colleagues; and, (iii) difficulties with communication and engagement.

7. The Trust also disclosed to the HCPC information concerning the Registrant’s health.

8. The Trust conducted its own investigation into the matters referred by it to the HCPC, and the Registrant was suspended from his employment while that investigation continued. The Registrant did not engage in that investigation, but it continued notwithstanding. On 6 May 2021, the Registrant tendered his resignation from his employment, and his last working day for the Trust was 28 May 2021.

9. On 9 September 2022, the Registrant wrote to the HCPC. He stated that he had believed that his HCPC registration had already expired, he admitted that he had previously struggled with the demands of his job and had not operated in line with accepted standards. He also stated that he no longer worked or wished to work in the healthcare sector. He also stated that he did not wish to engage with the HCPC in its investigation.

10. On 16 November 2022, a panel of the Investigating Committee considered whether there was a case to answer in relation to the allegation put before it by the HCPC following its investigation. The decision of that panel was that there was a case to answer in relation to the following allegation, and referred it to the Conduct and Competence Committee for hearing:

As a registered practitioner psychologist (PYL23069); your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence and/or health. In that:

1. Between approximately January 2020 and January 2021, you did not record clinical entries on service user case records in a timely manner in the following instances:

a. In relation to Service User A, you did not complete clinic entries in a timely manner for records which commenced/and or were due between 24 April 2020 and 08 December 2020.

b. In relation to Service User B, you did not complete clinic entries in a timely manner for records which commenced/and or were due between 16 January 2020 and 14 January 2021.

c. In relation to Service User C, you did not complete clinic entries in a timely manner for records which commenced/and or were due between 28 May 2020 and 01 December 2020.

d. In relation to Service User D, you did not complete clinical entries in a timely manner for records which commenced/and or were due between 10 January 2020 and 15 January 2021.

e. In relation to Service User E, you did not complete clinical entries in a timely manner for records which commenced/and or were due between 13 February 2020 and 29 January 2021.

f. In relation to Service User F, you did not complete clinical entries in a timely manner for records which commenced/and or were due between 04 March 2020 and 21 March 2021.

g. In relation to Service User G, you did not complete clinical entries in a timely manner for records which commenced/and or were due between 16 January 2020 and 21 March 2021.

2. On 03 December 2020, you did not act with due care and attention when questioning Service User B about alleged sexual abuse, in that:

a. You asked sensitive and detailed questions when a different intervention had been requested.

b. Your clinical case records did not provide reasonable context or grounds for your approach.

c. Your case notes did not specify whether you sought advice before engaging in detailed discussions with Service User B regarding their abuse.

3. You have a physical and/or mental health condition as set out in Schedule A.

4. Your conduct at particulars 1, 2 constitutes misconduct and/or lack of competence.

5. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence and/or health, your fitness to practise is impaired.

Schedule A

[Redacted].

Particulars contained in Schedule A have been redacted for this public version of the determination.

11. The allegation referred by the Investigating Committee is a “dual allegation” as it alleged that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence and also by reason of his health. As the referral was made to the Conduct and Competence Committee for resolution, it followed that the allegation founded on misconduct and/or lack of competence is the primary allegation; the health allegation being a secondary allegation.

12. At an early stage the Registrant made it plain that he did not wish to engage in the fitness to practise process [Redacted]. Following the case to answer decision of the Investigating Committee, the issue of voluntary removal was raised and the Registrant expressed interest in pursuing that course. The Panel does not consider it necessary to summarise the detail of the exchanges that took place; it is sufficient to record that the voluntary removal process and the effect of it were fully explained to the Registrant.

The submissions of the parties

13. The Panel was provided with a skeleton argument dated 24 July 2023, prepared on behalf of the HCPC. At the hearing, the Presenting Officer made oral submissions that were consistent with the terms of the skeleton argument. [Redacted]. It was acknowledged that the Panel should be satisfied that permitting the Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”) would provide an appropriate level of public protection and would not be detrimental to the wider public interest, [Redacted]. It was submitted that the present application satisfied those requirements and should accordingly be permitted to take effect.

14. There were no submissions provided by the Registrant specifically for this hearing, although the Panel was provided with copies of his communications relating to his wish to enter into a VRA and the formal documents he had signed to that end. Furthermore, the Panel was provided with a copy of a document written by the Registrant and entitled, “APPENDIX TO CONSENSUAL DISPOSAL APPLICATION: SUPPORTING INFORMATION”, which the Registrant appended to his pro-forma request for voluntary disposal dated 15 March 2023.

The Panel’s decision

15. The Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Disposal of Cases by Consent”. Accordingly, the Panel sought to be satisfied that:

• The Registrant did indeed wish for his name to be removed from the HCPC Register in the manner and on the terms dictated by the VRA.

• That giving effect to the VRA would afford a proper degree of public protection.

• That there were no other or wider public interest considerations that made disposal by a VRA inappropriate.

16. The Panel was satisfied that the effect of the VRA was indeed sought by the Registrant in full knowledge of the effect of that agreement being permitted. The Registrant has been clear that he does not wish to practise in the future.

17. So far as the degree of public protection that would be afforded is concerned, the removal from the HCPC Register that would be the consequence of the VRA taking effect offers no less public protection than the ultimate sanction of striking off were the matter to proceed to a hearing and misconduct impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise established. Further, by the VRA, the Registrant admitted the allegation (including misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise). Those admissions could be considered in the event of an application by him for restoration to the HCPC Register. In short, no greater public protection could be provided by the hearing proceeding to a substantive hearing.

18. So far as the wider public interest is concerned, the Panel readily acknowledges that there will be many cases in which it would not be appropriate for fitness to practise proceedings to be resolved in a “back door” manner as a public airing of the issues is required. Having carefully considered the matter with the benefit of all of the documents that were available to the Investigating Committee that made the case to answer decision, the Panel is satisfied that this case is not one of those cases. There would be no public interest served by requiring this case to proceed to a final hearing, [Redacted].

19. For these reasons, the Panel considered that it was appropriate to permit the VRA to be given effect. Accordingly, the Panel Chair will sign the Notice of Withdrawal.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Dr Jonathan Wain from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Dr Jonathan Wain