Philip J Jones

Preliminary Matters:

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that notice of today’s hearing had been served on the Registrant by email on 14 July 2023 and by post. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing had been posted and emailed to the Registrant’s respective postal and email addresses on the register. The email was undeliverable at the registered email address. The Panel however noted that service was proved by evidence of sending to the registered address, rather than actual receipt, and it was incumbent on the Registrant to notify any change of email or postal address. There was no indication that the postal address was incorrect or that the letter had not been delivered.

Proceeding in absence

2. The Registrant did not appear nor was he represented.

3. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Welsh applied for the hearing to be conducted in the absence of the Registrant on the basis that the Registrant had been notified of the time and date of the hearing at his registered postal and email addresses. The Registrant had not attended the original substantive hearing or the previous review hearing and had not engaged with the HCPC. Ms Welsh submitted that an adjournment was not likely to result in the Registrant’s attendance on a later date and that it was in the public interest for the hearing to proceed expeditiously, bearing in mind that the order would lapse if there were further delay.

4. Having considered the revised HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence and the advice of the Legal Assessor on the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 (“the fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against medical practitioners is of real importance”), the Panel determined that there was a burden on a registrant to update their contact details and engage with their regulator and that the Registrant had been served with reasonable notice of today’s hearing.

5. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not applied for an adjournment. There was no indication that he would attend on a later date if today’s hearing were to be adjourned. The Registrant had not in fact engaged with the regulatory process. The Panel therefore concluded that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to appear. The Panel also reminded itself of the overriding public interest in dealing with matters in a timely manner and that this was a mandatory review. In balancing the Registrant’s interests and the public interest, the Panel decided that the matter should be heard in the absence of the Registrant.

Hearing in Private

6. Ms Welsh for the HCPC made an application that the whole of this review hearing should be heard in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life because the case concerned his health.

7. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Hearings in Private and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. Having considered the information and findings about his state of health in the previous panels’ decisions, the Panel determined that the matters under consideration in this review were inextricably linked to the Registrant’s health. The Panel therefore determined that the hearing should be held entirely in private in order to protect his private life.

The Registrar is directed that from the expiration of the current suspension order, a further suspension order for a period of 6 months be imposed on the registration of Philip J Jones.

The Order imposed today will apply from 30 September 2023.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry.

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 Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.

History of Hearings for Philip J Jones