Shereen Bano

Preliminary Matters
Private hearing in part
1. Ms Collins drew the Panel’s attention to rule 10 of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the rules”) which allows the Panel a discretion to proceed with the hearing or part of the hearing in private.
2. Ms Collins submitted, as part of a joint application on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant, that this hearing should be a hybrid hearing with parts to be heard in private and parts to be heard in public. She asked the Panel to use its discretion to hold any parts of the hearing relating to the Registrant’s health or family life in private.
3. Ms Collins also requested that the hearsay application be heard partially in private as it relates to Colleague A’s private life.
4. The Registrant supported the application.
5. The Panel took into account the advice of the Legal Assessor and the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (“HCPTS”) practice note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’ dated March 2017. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. However, the Panel accepted the submissions made by Ms Collins and decided that parts of the hearing should be held in private. In reaching this decision the Panel had regard to the protection of the private lives of the Registrant, her family, and Colleague A. The Panel noted that there is information in the bundles which relates to the Registrant’s health and personal information about members of her family. In relation to Colleague A, she has provided sensitive information relating to the health of one of her family members, and the impact it has had on her ability to attend the hearing. The Panel’s decision for part of the hearing to be held in private is to protect details of the Registrant’s health and the personal information relating to her family members, as well as personal information relating to Colleague A’s family member.
6. The Panel noted that these health and personal matters could easily be separated from other evidence and therefore decided that it would be fair and proportionate to move in and out of private session rather than conduct the hearing wholly in private.
Amendment of Allegation
7. Ms Collins made an application to amend the Allegation. Ms Collins explained that the original Allegation had been amended by a Preliminary Hearing Panel on 30 October 2023.
8. Ms Collins said that upon reviewing the evidence in the bundle, it was apparent that two emails were sent on 27 May 2021 by the Registrant to Colleague A, and these emails are exhibited to Colleague A’s witness statement. Ms Collins therefore requested that the Allegation be amended at Particular 3a to include the word ‘two’ as a replacement for the word ‘an’ and change the word ‘email’ to ‘emails’ (as set out in Bold/Strikethrough in the Allegation above). Ms Collins submitted that this was a minor amendment which better reflects the evidence, and which would not create unfairness to the Registrant.
9. The Registrant stated that she was in agreement with the amendment.
10. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She reminded the Panel that it must consider whether such amendments would cause injustice to the Registrant or undermine her right to a fair hearing. The Legal Assessor informed the Panel of the requirement to consider whether the proposed amendments heighten the seriousness of the Allegation or represent a material change in some other respect. If they do not, that would be a strong indicator that the proposed amendments would not cause any injustice. The Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to the case of the Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319, in which it was held that a professional disciplinary committee is entitled to make amendments to the allegations before it, to avoid undercharging.
11. Having regard to fairness to the Registrant the Panel were satisfied that amending the wording of the Particulars would not have a detrimental, or prejudicial, effect on the Registrant.
12. The Panel concluded that the proposed additional wording and deletion at Particular 3(a) more accurately reflects the evidence provided by Colleague A which is contained within the bundle. The Panel considered that the proposed amendments only amount to minor amendments and do not widen the scope of the Allegation.
Admissions and denials
13. The amended Allegation was read to the Registrant. The Registrant admitted to Particulars 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c). She denied Particulars 1(d), 2 and 4 and asked the Panel to have regard to her two-page reflective statement for context to the denials. The Panel confirmed that Particulars 5 and 6 were matters for the Panel’s own independent judgment and, within this context, Registrant made no comment in relation to misconduct and impairment (as set out in Particulars 5 and 6).
Background
14. The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner ("ODP") who was employed by HCA Healthcare UK ("HCA") from 09 November 2020 to 02 July 2021.
15. The HCPC received a referral from HCA on 06 August 2021 in respect of the Registrant allegedly making four fraudulent claims for expenses all submitted together on 26 May 2021. The claims were for meals ordered by the Registrant whilst she was undertaking training in Robotics which required her to stay in London (18 to 30 May 2021). The four claims entered covered the period 19 May 2021 to 25 May 2021. A number of meals were claimed for 26 May 2021 but only four of those claims were referred to the HCPC.
16. The HCPC state that the HCA expenses information is set out within the Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy (“the policy”). It is stated that this policy allows HCA employees to claim for their evening meal on overnight travel, not exceeding £75 per head. It is alleged that the policy is available to all employees through the HCA intranet and that the Registrant’s manager would also be responsible for making sure the Registrant was aware of the policy prior to travelling. The policy states at 5.6.3, ‘Generally HCA will not reimburse employees for any portion of expenses related to an individual accompanying an employee on a business trip. In such cases, the employee must itemise expenses related to spouse travel/business expense (…portion of meals, etc.) so that HCA does not reimburse an employee for such costs. In those cases where the individual's travel costs are considered necessary business expenses, the costs must be documented and the business purpose explained in detail.’
17. It is alleged that when the claims were submitted to HCA by the Registrant using the SAP-Concur System, Colleague A (Regional Chief Operating Officer for HCA) who was responsible for approving the expense claims, queried with the Registrant via email if she had also claimed for other people as part of her claim. The reason for the query being that some receipts itemised two starters, two mains, two deserts and two drinks, and the HCA policy does not allow for employees to fund people who are not employees.
18. It is alleged that the Registrant confirmed to Colleague A, by way of two emails sent on 27 May 2021, that she had eaten by herself and that the meals were of small portions which is why there were numerous. Colleague A states that she approved the claims as a result of the explanation provided.
19. The Financial Controls and Compliance department of HCA are required to run spot checks on the list of employee approved claims from the week prior. As part of this procedure, there are a number of ‘high risk’ expense codes. These included codes regarding social events, dinner, and drinks.
20. As part of the spot checks, the Registrant’s claims which had been approved by Colleague A, were picked as the claims contained expense code for dinners.
21. Colleague B (Head of Financial Controls and Compliance for HCA) reviewed the claims and noted that the food listed on four of the receipts looked excessive for one person. Colleague B states that there were four receipts that contained food in quantities that were for two of each course. These were meals at ‘Berto on 20 May, Plum Valley on 21 May, Fish Works on 22 May and Wulf & Lambe on 25 May.’ Colleague B states that within the Registrant’s submitted claims she had added a comment to indicate that there were no other attendees other than herself.
22. On 02 June 2021, it is alleged that Colleague B emailed the Registrant directly to raise questions about these four receipts. The email was copied into Colleague A and the Chief Financial Officer for HCA.
23. Colleague B states that she received an email reply from Colleague A, copying in the Registrant, letting her know she also had concerns regarding the claims and that she had raised them with the Registrant but had approved them following the Registrant’s explanation. Colleague A’s involvement is said to have ended at this point.
24. The Registrant is said to have replied to Colleague B on 02 June 2023 confirming that she was alone and that the portion sizes in London are not ‘particularly adequate’.
25. It is stated that Colleague B emailed the Registrant again on 03 June 2021 with some follow up questions regarding the claims but that no response was received from the Registrant.
26. As a result, Colleague B was tasked with thoroughly reviewing the claims which is said to include her contacting two of the restaurants to confirm details of the meals and bookings. Colleague B states that she telephoned the FishWorks and Berto restaurants. It is alleged by Colleague B that staff at FishWorks confirmed that two people could be seen on CCTV on the table for the duration of the meal which related to the relevant receipt. In relation to Berto, it is alleged that staff informed Colleague B that two diners were booked in their booking schedule for the table noted on the relevant receipt.
27. Following confirmation from the two restaurants’, Colleague B passed the information to the Joint Ventures Management Team and outlined it, in an email, how much the claim would be if the Registrant had only claimed for one meal on each occasion rather than two. Colleague B’s involvement with the matter then ended on 07 June 2021.
28. On 09 June 2021, the HR department at HCA asked Colleague C (Regional Patient Administration Manager at HCA) to be involved in an independent investigation in respect of the Registrant that was to take place on 10 June 2021. Colleague C was asked to investigate the allegations that were brought forward against the Registrant in respect of a potentially fraudulent expenses claim. Colleague C was tasked with taking a factual account of what had happened whilst the Registrant was away on the HCA training course, in relation to the meals she had claimed.
29. It is said that a fact-finding meeting took place on 10 June 2021 with Colleague C, the Registrant, and the HR Business Partner for HCA, being present. Colleague C states that the Registrant was only made aware of the meeting on the morning of 10 June 2021. Colleague C’s statement exhibits a copy of the notes from the meeting.
30. Colleague C states that at the beginning of the meeting the Registrant maintained she had eaten alone in relation to all four of the expense claims. Colleague C alleges that once confronted with the additional information gained by Colleague B, regarding CCTV, the Registrant admitted to eating with another person on three occasions during the dates in question. The Registrant did not identify on which three dates. Colleague C states that the Registrant was visibly upset after being told about the CCTV and said that she did not know how to claim for part of the SAP Concur System.
31. Colleague C states that she ended the meeting by informing the Registrant that she was to be suspended pending a formal disciplinary hearing. Colleague C confirmed that she then handed the matter back to HR and had no further involvement.
32. Colleague A states that on 29 June 2021, she received an email from the Registrant attaching an apology letter which she exhibits to her witness statement.
Evidence
33. Ms Collins said that the HCPC were intending to call Colleague A as a witness to give live evidence. However, at late notice, she had confirmed that she was unable to attend the hearing. Ms Collins submitted that there was good reason for her non-attendance and as a result, the HCPC would be applying for Colleague A’s statement to be admitted as hearsay evidence.
Hearsay Application
34. Ms Collins referred the Panel to rule 10 which allows hearsay evidence to be admitted in accordance with the Civil Evidence Act 1995. Ms Collins said that consideration of hearsay evidence involves a two-stage approach as set out in the case of El Karout and NMC [2019] EWHC 28 (Admin) and at this stage the Panel is required to consider whether the evidence is admissible.
35. Ms Collins submitted that it was fair to admit the evidence of Colleague A for the following reasons:
• Colleague A is still willing to co-operate if the case is adjourned to a later date. However, the HCPC does not believe that it is in the public interest to delay the hearing.
• The HCPC has explored other options with Colleague A, as to how it could assist her to attend including offering flexibility with timings, but Colleague A remains unable to attend.
• Colleague A’s statement is mainly factual rather than opinion and exhibits contemporaneous email exchanges between her and the Registrant from the relevant time. All save one of the emails are copied into Colleague B who is due to give live evidence and she can therefore be questioned in relation to those. The only evidence provided by Colleague A, that is not able to be given by another witness, is in relation to the two emails on 27 May 2021, but copies of these emails are exhibited to her statement.
• Colleague A’s statement does not contain multiple hearsay.
• Colleague A has no motive to conceal or misrepresent information. She did not know the Registrant before approving her expenses and has never met her.
• The exhibited emails were made in the course of business in real time and were not written for any other purpose. The witness statement was signed on 25 August 2022 and was made for the purpose of the HCPC investigation.
• If the Panel admits the evidence, it can consider what weight, if any, to place on the witness statement when it considers its findings on fact.
36. The Registrant said that there were no points that she wished to make in response. She recognised that admitting the evidence would mean that she would not have an opportunity to ask Colleague A any questions but acknowledged that not having the chance to do this would not change the mistake that she [the Registrant] had made.
37. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to factors it should take into account in considering a hearsay application. The legal adviser did not specifically identify all the case names, but the factors referred to arise from the cases of: Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin), R (Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin), El Karout v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2019] EWHC 19 (Admin), and Mansaray v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2023] EWHC 730.
38. The Panel began its deliberations by asking itself whether the admission of the evidence would undermine the Registrant’s right to a fair hearing. The Panel took into account its duty to protect the public as well as its common law duty to ensure that hearsay evidence should only be admitted if it is relevant, fair and in the interests of justice.
39. The Panel noted that the Registrant was not opposed to the application, but it nonetheless considered the application in accordance with the approach set out in Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565.
40. The Panel took into account that statement of Colleague A is not the sole or decisive evidence in support of the charges save for in relation to the emails referred to in Particular 3(a). The Panel noted that the evidence relied upon by the HCPC in relation to Particular 3(a) is email evidence, copies of which are exhibited to Colleague A’s statement. The Panel considered these to be demonstrably reliable in that they are contemporaneous emails containing the date they were sent and the Registrant’s email details.
41. The Panel took into account that Colleague A’s statement is mostly factual rather than opinion evidence and it does not contain multiple hearsay. Further, the Panel noted that it does not appear from the information provided within the bundle that the Registrant disputes Colleague A’s evidence.
42. The Panel had regard to the fact that Colleague A did not know the Registrant and was only involved with events as she was responsible for approving the Registrant’s expenses. The Panel had no information before it to suggest that Colleague A had reasons to fabricate her evidence.
43. The Panel considered that there was a good reason for the non-attendance of Colleague A who has provided evidence of the difficult personal circumstances she is currently experiencing. The Panel thought it to Colleague A’s credit that despite her current situation she was still willing to communicate with the HCPC and provide documentary evidence of [REDACTED]. The Panel did not consider that Colleague A’s non-attendance was an attempt to prevent a proper evaluation of the evidence, noting that she had indicated that she was still willing to give evidence if the hearing could be adjourned.
44. The Panel considered that the HCPC had taken reasonable steps to secure Colleague A’s attendance including offering a flexible approach as to when Colleague A could attend. The Panel accepted the HCPC submissions that it was not in the public interest in adjourning the hearing to allow Colleague A to attend as there are other live witnesses who speak to the same events who are able to attend and give evidence.
45. The Panel bore in mind that its role today was to addresses the matter of admissibility, and that once hearsay evidence is admitted it must still be assessed by the Panel as to the appropriate weight to attach to it.
46. Based on the evidence and information before the Panel, and for the reasons set out above, the Panel agreed to the admission of the written evidence of Colleague A.
Live Evidence
47. The HCPC called the following witnesses to give live evidence:
i) Colleague B – Head of financial Controls and Compliance at HCA.
ii) Colleague C – Regional Patient Administration Manager.
48. The witnesses gave evidence on affirmation and relied on their witness statements and exhibits. The witnesses were cross-examined by the Registrant and were asked questions of clarification by the Panel.
49. The Registrant then had the opportunity to put her case. In advance of the hearing she had provided the Panel with a 30 (PDF) page response bundle which included:
• An overall reflection of two pages.
• CPD Standards document.
• Various Training Course Certificates.
• An Annual Appraisal Form.
• Twelve character references.
50. In the reflection document the Registrant states that when she received the email regarding the expenses, she did not quite understand the severity of the situation and responded quickly with no thought. The Registrant states that she was not given any notice of the fact-finding meeting at HCA and that when she was asked if she dined alone, ‘in a panic state, I blurted out yes.’ She states that when told there was CCTV evidence of her dining with another person, the reality hit her and she broke down and admitted that on three of the four occasions she had dined with another.
51. The reflection document sets out the issues the Registrant states that she was having in her personal life at the time. It states as follows:
‘At the time of the event I was under a lot of stress [REDACTED]. I was working a lot of hours to try and accommodate to the needs of the business. When this mistake had occurred; because of my thoughtlessness of not reading the policy thoroughly and asking for advice on the matter. I assumed I could claim up to £75 on evening meals despite dining with another. [REDACTED], so, when I dined with the other person I had consumed more than 50% of the meals and felt obligated to pay more for the meal thinking this would be okay to claim. When I received the email asking me about the [REDACTED]. So, when I responded to the email I did so quickly and thoughtlessly giving answers in my [REDACTED] rather than waiting until I was more settled and possibly calling the person to gain better understanding of the matter. When the interrogation occurred, reality had hit me and I felt everything shatter and crumble within myself. I felt complete utter regret, shame, embarrassment and troubled. The experience was reality check for myself to deal with my [REDACTED]. Not being embarrassed and understanding that its okay to speak up and honestly about these matters and go seek help and guidance on the matter.’
52. The Registrant states that upon reflection she should have done things differently and been open and asked for help, not only with expenses but also with her [REDACTED] at the time. She states that if ‘this situation was to occur in the future, I would read the policy more clearly and asking questions when needed. I would have gained advice and been more open and honest on the situation as well as opening up about the [REDACTED] I was going through rather than feeling scared and embarrassed and alone. After this event, I have ensured that my practice is kept up to date and during this period of time I have worked on my [REDACTED] as well as my mistake I made. Ensuring my timesheets are accurate, correct and filled out appropriately and meet policy and procedure of the agency I am working for. Since the time of the incident I have made sure that I have never had an issue regarding any matter especially on honesty.’
53. The Registrant gave evidence on affirmation. She was cross-examined by Ms Collins and asked questions of clarification by the Panel.
54. Ms Collins provided the Registrant and the Panel with typed closing submissions. The Registrant was given the opportunity to spend some time reading the submissions and formulating her own. The Registrant read out her closing submissions which she had handwritten. The Registrant said that she was willing to put her submissions in writing and send to the Panel. The Registrant’s closing submissions are as follows:
‘At the time of the event I was [REDACTED] causing an error to occur in my judgement. I understand the mistakes I have made. The last 2 years have constantly loomed over me filled with [REDACTED], regret and remorsefulness. I have spent this time to constantly reflecting and changing my character personally and professionally. I have ensured whilst practicing to be open and honest regarding everything. Throughout this time I have made sure to keep up with practice, policy and procedure and always do everything with honesty and integrity. I have had no issues since this event. My career has given me the ambition, drive and the determination to understand what’s occurred and to change and how to move forward from this event. I implore that the panel take into consideration my remorse for what have I done. I understand the plight it has caused to everyone involved. I please ask you to take into consideration my circumstances. I am truly and deeply apologetic and sorry for everything and I can promise the panel that this will never happen again.’
55. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in respect of the approach to take in determining findings of facts and the burden and standard of proof. The burden of proof rests on the HCPC and it is for the HCPC to prove the Allegation irrespective of any admissions made by the Registrant. The Legal Assessor provided advice on the issues of credibility and reliability, as per the guidance in R (Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin). Advice was given on the test to be applied when considering a charge of dishonesty which is found in the guidance of the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) LTD t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67. Advice was also given in relation to the Registrant being a person of good character who prior to this Allegation and her partial admissions (as set out above) had no previous regulatory concerns raised against her. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note titled ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’ dated November 2022.
Decision on Facts
Particular 1
‘On 26 May 2021, whilst working for Hospital Corporate of America Healthcare ('HCA'), contrary to your employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy, you submitted expense claims for meals, which included meals other than for you, when
a) you dined at a restaurant named Berto on 20 May 2021;
56. It is not in dispute that on the relevant date the Registrant was working for HCA.
57. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant had dined at Berto restaurant on 20 May 2021. It is not disputed by the Registrant that she dined at Berto on the 20 May 2021. The Panel was provided with a photograph of a Berto receipt dated 20 May 2021 at 22:04. This receipt was exhibited to Colleague B’s statement, it being the evidence that the Registrant had attached to her expenses claim to seek reimbursement for the meal. The receipt is for the sum of £55.99.
58. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant had submitted expense claims for meals as set out in the stem of the Particular. It is not disputed by the Registrant that she did submit claims for reimbursement of expenses for meals whilst she was staying in London for HCA training. The Panel relied on the evidence of Colleague B in finding that the Registrant had submitted an expense claim for a meal at Berto where she had dined on 20 May 2021. Colleague B’s witness statement exhibits a screen shot of the Registrant’s entry on the SAP-Concur system. This exhibit shows the Registrant claiming for expenses from 19 May 2021 to 26 May 2021. Included in the list of expenses is an entry for the 20 May 2021 which indicates the expense as UK Dinner Allowance ‘berto’, with an amount entered of ‘£55.99. Colleague B’s second witness statement confirms that the claims were submitted on 26 May 2021 at 22:34 by the Registrant, and a screenshot from the SAP-Concur system showing the claim audit trail is exhibited. The Panel placed significant weight on the evidence of Colleague B and felt confident in relying on it for the following reasons:
• Colleague B has no personal gain in these proceedings, she did not know the Registrant and only became involved with the Registrant’s case as a result of her own job, which is (in part) to conduct audits of expense claims.
• Colleague B’s evidence carried significant weight as her witness testimony is supported by exhibiting contemporaneous documents, which were created in the course of business, such as screenshots of the SAP-Concur system and emails.
59. The Panel next considered whether the expense claim for the meal at Berto’s which the Registrant submitted included meals other than for her. The Panel considered that the expense claim for £55.99 for the meal at Berto’s (as individually itemised on the Berto’s receipt) did include food other than for the Registrant for the reasons set out below.
60. The Panel relied on the evidence provided by Colleague B in her witness statement dated 30 August 2022 and which was supplemented by her oral evidence. For the reasons already set out above the Panel was confident in relying on the evidence of Colleague B who remained consistent in her oral evidence with her earlier written account and who in the main relied on contemporaneous documentary evidence as exhibited to her statement. The relevant parts of Colleague B’s evidence which the Panel relied on are set out in more detail below.
61. As set out in the background section of this decision Colleague B was running a spot check on the Registrant’s expense claims which had already been approved by Colleague A. Colleague B states that on reviewing the claims, she ‘noted that the food listed on four of the receipts looked excess for one person. There were four receipts that contained food in quantities that was two of each course. These were the meals at Berto on 20 May…In the expenses claim submitted by the Registrant, there is the option to put if there were any extra attendees. On the Registrant’s submitted claims, this was stated as “Not Applicable.” The Registrant further added a comment that stated “Please note there was no other attendees other than myself. I couldn’t submit the claim without adding the required field.” The comment box was a required field to submit a claim.’ The Panel noted that Colleague B exhibits a screenshot of the SAP-Concur system which shows the comment made by the Registrant in relation to there being no other attendees.
62. In oral evidence Colleague B confirmed that what concerned her about the Registrant’s claim was not the amount of money but related to the volume of food in that there was “a lot of food”. Colleague B explained that, from experience, other receipts tend to include a starter, a main, and a desert, along with a drink such as a glass of wine, water, or a tea/coffee. Colleague B said that from her initial review of the Registrant’s expenses, four of the receipts had more than one dinner for example two starters, two mains and two deserts.
63. Colleague B’s statement reported that she then carried out a more thorough review of the expenses, including contacting two of the restaurants to confirm details of the meals and bookings. The statement notes that from ‘the receipts provided by the Registrant, with the table, amount, date and receipt numbers, it is possible for restaurants to provide booking information without providing any personal details of the persons eating there. From my experience with expense claims, restaurant also sometimes add the number of guest on the receipt. In the case of the receipt from the restaurant Berto…the top of the receipt states “Draft Receipt #2”. This means the receipt is a reprint. Restaurants do this when two people are splitting a meal and both want to claim expenses back. I have worked in this area for over five years so I am aware this is what they do.’ The Panel took into account the exhibit to Colleague B’s statement, namely a photograph of the receipt for the meal at Berto provided in the bundle. It contains the text, as set out by Colleague B, ‘DRAFT RECEIPT #2’.
64. As part of the more thorough review of the expenses, Colleague B sets out in her statement that she contacted Berto restaurant. Her statement notes that at 11:26am on 3 June 2021, ‘I telephoned Berto, the restaurant the Registrant visited on 20 May 2021. They were able to confirm to me verbally that there were two diners on their booking schedule for the table noted on the receipt. The restaurant was unable to recall the CCTV to confirm whether there were two people sat at the table. I asked the person I was speaking to that if hypothetically a person was very hungry, would they order both of the main meals claimed for on the receipt themselves? They replied that with their portion sizes, you would not order both of these meals for one person.’
65. Colleague B’s evidence accords with the admission made by the Registrant at the outset of the hearing in relation to Particular 1(a) and which she admitted during cross-examination. The Registrant accepted that she had dined at Berto and when asked who with she replied that she had dined with a friend. The Registrant accepted that she had paid for the meal and was not given any money by her friend.
66. The Panel’s final consideration in relation to this Particular was to establish whether the claim for the meal at Berto which had included a meal for the Registrant’s friend, was contrary to HCA’s Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy. The Panel first considered the policy which was exhibited to Colleague B’s witness statement. At 5.4.1 of the policy, it sets out that meal expenses while travelling on HCA business are reimbursable. It indicates that when two or more employees dine together, costs may be divided, or the higher-ranking employee should incur the expense – a maximum limit of £75 per head must be applied. Further, that all meals require a restaurant receipt. The policy contains a specific section headed ‘5.6.3 Spouse/Non-Employee Travel/Business Expenses’ which states, ‘Generally HCA will not reimburse employees for any portion of expenses related to an individual accompanying an employee on a business trip. In such cases, the employee must itemise expenses related to spouse travel/business expense (…portion of meals, etc.) so that HCA does not reimburse an employee for such costs. In those cases where the individual's travel costs are considered necessary business expenses, the costs must be documented and the business purpose explained in detail.’
67. In oral evidence Colleague B referred to the policy and confirmed that she had good knowledge of the contents as she was the author of the policy. She confirmed that the policy is available to all HCA staff on the internal intranet. In terms of reclaimable expenses, Colleague B said that costs could be reimbursed if, for example, two employees were dining together or an employee was paying for a meal for a potential client, but this would require the claimant to name the person who they dined with due to company tax implications and anti-bribery requirements. In order to capture this type of information, the SAP-Concur system required the claimant to populate the field entitled ‘Attendees’ and if this field was not populated, the system would not move to the next stage The Panel had sight of the screenshot of the SAP-Concur system as an exhibit to Colleague B’s statement and therefore noted that under the sub heading ‘Attendees (other than yourself)’, the Registrant has typed ‘n/a’. The Panel considered the evidence from Colleague B in relation to the policy to be reliable. The policy was exhibited as direct evidence and the Panel placed significant weight on it as a formal business document. The Panel concluded from the policy, that when dining out during her HCA training in London, the Registrant would have been entitled to claim up to £75 per day for her meal but would not have been entitled to claim for her friend, a non-employee of HCA, as made clear in paragraph 5.6.3 of the policy. In cross-examination the Registrant accepted that her friend did not work for HCA and that, regardless of the policy, common-sense would indicate that a company would not pay for meals for employee’s friends.
68. In conclusion, the Panel found that on the balance of probabilities, that on 26 May 2021, whilst working for HCA, contrary to her employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy, the Registrant submitted expense claims for meals, which included meals other than for her, when, she dined at a restaurant named Berto on 20 May 2021. FOUND PROVED.
Particular 1
‘On 26 May 2021, whilst working for Hospital Corporate of America Healthcare ('HCA'), contrary to your employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy, you submitted expense claims for meals, which included meals other than for you, when
b) you dined at a restaurant named Plum Valley on 21 May 2021;’
69. As with the decision at Particular 1(a), the Panel took into account that there was no dispute that at the relevant time the Registrant was working for HCA.
70. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant had dined at Plum Valley on 21 May 2021. It is not disputed by the Registrant that she dined at Plum Valley on 21 May 2021.
71. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant had submitted expense claims for meals as set out in the stem of the Particular. It is not disputed by the Registrant that she did submit claims for reimbursement of expenses for meals whilst she was staying in London for HCA training in Robotics. The Panel relied on the evidence of Colleague B in finding that the Registrant had submitted an expense claim for a meal at Plum Valley where she had dined on 21 May 2021. For the reasons set out in relation to Particular 1 (a) the Panel placed significant weight on the evidence of Colleague B which included providing documentary evidence of the SAP-Concur system. One of Colleague B’s exhibits is a screen shot of the Registrant’s entry on the SAP-Concur system. This exhibit shows the Registrant claiming for expenses from 19 May 2021 to 26 May 2021. Included in the list of expenses is an entry for the 21 May 2021 which indicates the expense as UK Dinner Allowance ‘Plum valley’, with an amount entered of ‘£67.39’. Colleague B’s second witness statement confirms that the claims were submitted on 26 May 2021 at 22:34 by the Registrant, and a screenshot from the SAP-Concur system showing the claim audit trail is exhibited.
72. The Panel next considered whether the expense claim for the meal at Plum Valley which the Registrant submitted included meals other than for her. The Panel considered that the expense claim for £67.39 did include meals other than for the Registrant. In finding this, the Panel relied on the evidence provided by Colleague B in her witness statement dated 30 August 2022 and which was supplemented by her oral evidence. For the reasons already set out the Panel was confident in relying on the evidence of Colleague B. The relevant parts of Colleague B’s evidence which the Panel relied on in respect of finding this Particular proved are set out in more detail below.
73. Colleague B states that on reviewing the Registrant’s expense claims, she ‘noted that the food listed on four of the receipts looked excess for one person. There were four receipts that contained food in quantities that was two of each course. These were the meals at … Plum Valley on 21 May, …In the expenses claim submitted by the Registrant, there is the option to put if there were any extra attendees. On the Registrant’s submitted claims, this was stated as “Not Applicable.” The Registrant further added a comment that stated “Please note there was no other attendees other than myself. I couldn’t submit the claim without adding the required field.” The comment box was a required field to submit a claim.’ The Panel noted that Colleague B exhibits a screenshot of the SAP-Concur system which shows the comment made by the Registrant in relation to there being no other attendees. Unlike Berto (Particular 1a), the Panel did not have sight of a photograph of the receipt relating to the Plum Valley restaurant.
74. In oral evidence Colleague B confirmed that had had sight of the Plum Valley restaurant receipt and what concerned her about the Registrant’s claim was not the cost (£67.39), but the volume of food, in that it was “a lot of food” itemised within the Plum Valley receipt. Colleague B explained that, from experience, other receipts she tends to see include a starter, a main, and a desert, along with a drink such as a glass of wine, water, or a tea/coffee. Colleague B said that from her initial review of the Registrant’s expense receipts, four of the receipts had more than one meal for example two starters, two mains and two deserts.
75. Colleague B’s evidence accords with the admission made by the Registrant at the outset of the hearing in relation to Particular 1(b) and which she admitted during cross-examination. In cross-examination, the Registrant accepted that she had dined at Plum Valley and when asked who with, she said that she had dined with a relative. The Registrant further accepted that she had paid for the meal and that her relative did not give her any money towards the meal.
76. The Panel’s final consideration in relation to this Particular was to establish whether the claim for the meal at Plum Valley, which had included a meal for the Registrant’s relative, was contrary to HCA’s Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy. The Panel first considered the policy which was exhibited to colleague B’s witness statement. At 5.4.1 of the policy, it sets out that meal expenses while travelling on HCA business are reimbursable. It indicates that when two or more employees dine together, costs may be divided, or the higher-ranking employee should incur the expense – a maximum limit of £75 per head must be applied. Further, that all meals require a restaurant receipt. The policy contains a specific section headed ‘5.6.3 Spouse/Non-Employee Travel/Business Expenses’ which states, ‘Generally HCA will not reimburse employees for any portion of expenses related to an individual accompanying an employee on a business trip. In such cases, the employee must itemise expenses related to spouse travel/business expense (…portion of meals, etc.) so that HCA does not reimburse an employee for such costs. In those cases where the individual's travel costs are considered necessary business expenses, the costs must be documented and the business purpose explained in detail.’
77. In oral evidence Colleague B referred to the policy and confirmed that she had good knowledge of the contents as she was the author of the policy. She confirmed that the policy is available to all HCA staff on the internal intranet. In terms of reclaimable expenses, Colleague B said that money could be reimbursed if for example two employees were dining together or an employee was paying for a meal for a potential client, but this would require the claimant to name the person who they dined with due to company tax implications and anti-bribery requirements. In order to capture this type of information, the SAP-Concur system required the claimant to populate the field entitled ‘Attendees’ and if this field was not populated, the system would not move to the next stage The Panel had sight of the screenshot of the SAP-Concur system as an exhibit to Colleague B’s statement and therefore noted that under the sub heading ‘Attendees (other than yourself)’, the Registrant has typed ‘n/a’..
78. As with its finding in relation to Particular 1(a), the Panel considered the evidence from Colleague B in relation to the policy to be reliable. The policy was exhibited as direct evidence and the Panel placed significant weight on it as a formal business document. The Panel concluded from the policy, that when dining out during her training in London, the Registrant would have been entitled to claim up to £75 per day for her meal but would not have been entitled to claim for her relative, a non-employee of HCA, as made clear in paragraph 5.6.3 of the policy. In cross-examination the Registrant accepted that her relative did not work for the company and that regardless of the policy common-sense would indicate that a company would not pay for meals for employee’s relatives.
79. In conclusion, the Panel found that on the balance of probabilities, that on 26 May 2021, whilst working for HCA, contrary to her employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy, the Registrant submitted expense claims for meals, which included meals other than for her, when, she dined at a restaurant named Plum Valley on 21 May 2021. FOUND PROVED.
Particular 1
‘On 26 May 2021, whilst working for Hospital Corporate of America Healthcare ('HCA'), contrary to your employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy, you submitted expense claims for meals, which included meals other than for you, when
c) you dined at a restaurant named Fish Works on 22 May 2021;’
80. As with the decision at Particular 1(a) and 1(b) the Panel took into account that there was no dispute that at the relevant time the Registrant was working for HCA.
81. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant had dined at Fish Works on 22 May 2021. It is not disputed by the Registrant that she dined at Fish Works on the 22 May 2021.
82. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant had submitted expense claims for meals as set out in the stem of the Particular. It is not disputed by the Registrant that she did submit claims for reimbursement of expenses for meals whilst she was in London training. The Panel relied on the evidence of Colleague B in finding that the Registrant had submitted an expense claim for a meal at Fish Works where she had dined on 22 May 2021. For the reasons set out in relation to Particular 1 (a) the Panel placed significant weight on the evidence of Colleague B which included providing documentary evidence of the SAP-Concur system. One of Colleague B’s exhibits is a screen shot of the Registrant’s entry on the SAP-Concur system. This exhibit shows the Registrant claiming for expenses from 19 May 2021 to 26 May 2021. Included in the list of expenses is an entry for the 22 May 2021 which indicates the expense as UK Dinner Allowance ‘fishworks’’, with an amount entered of ‘£72.73’. Colleague B’s second witness statement confirms that the claims were submitted on 26 May 2021 at 22:34 by the Registrant, and a screenshot from the SAP-Concur system showing the claim audit trail is exhibited.
83. The Panel next considered whether the expense claim for the meal at Fish Works which the Registrant submitted included meals other than for her. The Panel considered that the expense claim for £72.73 did include meals other than for the Registrant. In finding this, the Panel relied on the evidence provided by Colleague B in her witness statement dated 30 August 2022 and which was supplemented by her oral evidence. For the reasons already set out the Panel was confident in relying on the evidence of Colleague B. The relevant parts of Colleague B’s evidence which the Panel relied on in respect of finding this Particular proved are set out in more detail below.
84. Colleague B states that on reviewing the Registrant’s claims, she ‘noted that the food listed on four of the receipts looked excess for one person. There were four receipts that contained food in quantities that was two of each course. These were the meals at … Fish Works on 22 May…n the expenses claim submitted by the Registrant, there is the option to put if there were any extra attendees. On the Registrant’s submitted claims, this was stated as “Not Applicable.” The Registrant further added a comment that stated “Please note there was no other attendees other than myself. I couldn’t submit the claim without adding the required field.” The comment box was a required field to submit a claim.’ The Panel noted that Colleague B exhibits a screenshot of the SAP-Concur system which shows the comment made by the Registrant in relation to there being no other attendees.
85. In oral evidence Colleague B confirmed that what concerned her about the Registrant’s claim was not the cost, but the volume of food, which was “a lot of food” itemised. Colleague B explained that other receipts she tends to see from experience would include a starter, a main, and a desert, along with a drink such as a glass of wine, water, or a tea/coffee. Colleague B said that from her initial review of the Registrant’s expenses four of the receipts had more than one dinner for example two starters, two mains and two deserts.
86. Colleague B’s statement states that she then carried out a more thorough review of the expenses, including contacting two of the restaurants to confirm details of the meals and bookings. The statement notes that from ‘the receipts provided by the Registrant, with the table, amount, date, and receipt numbers, it is possible for restaurants to provide booking information without providing any personal details of the persons eating there. From my experience with expense claims, restaurant also sometimes add the number of guest on the receipt... I have worked in this area for over five years so I am aware this is what they do.’ The Panel did not have sight of the Fish Works receipt.
87. However, as part of the more thorough review of the expenses, Colleague B sets out in her statement that she contacted Fish Works restaurant. Her statement notes that at 11:20am on 3 June 2021, ‘I telephoned Fish Works, the restaurant the Registrant visited on 22 May 2021 to ask if they had any records to show how many individuals were at this sitting. They returned my call at 11:32am and confirmed on the phone that through reviewing their CCTV, three were two individuals sitting at the table for the duration of the meal. I asked them to confirm that it was the correct table as the receipt produced by the Registrant. They confirmed the receipt value and each item that was on the receipt to me. I did not request a copy of the CCTV because of the data protection hoops I would have had to jump through to obtain this.’
88. Colleague B’s evidence accords with the admission made by the Registrant at the outset of the hearing in relation to Particular 1(c) and which she admitted by providing further detail during her evidence. In cross-examination, the Registrant accepted that she had dined at Fish Works and when asked who with she said that she had dined with a relative, the same person who had dined with her at Plum Valley. The Registrant accepted that she had paid for the meal and was not given any money by her relative.
89. The Panel’s final consideration in relation to this Particular was to establish whether the claim for the meal at Fish Works, which had included a meal for the Registrant’s relative, was contrary to HCA’s Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy. The Panel first considered the policy which was exhibited to Colleague B’s witness statement. At 5.4.1 of the policy, it sets out that meal expenses while travelling on HCA business are reimbursable. It indicates that when two or more employees dine together, costs may be divided, or the higher-ranking employee should incur the expense – a maximum limit of £75 per head must be applied. Further, that all meals require a restaurant receipt. The policy contains a specific section headed ‘5.6.3 Spouse/Non-Employee Travel/Business Expenses’ which states, ‘Generally HCA will not reimburse employees for any portion of expenses related to an individual accompanying an employee on a business trip. In such cases, the employee must itemise expenses related to spouse travel/business expense (…portion of meals, etc.) so that HCA does not reimburse an employee for such costs. In those cases where the individual's travel costs are considered necessary business expenses, the costs must be documented, and the business purpose explained in detail.’
90. In oral evidence Colleague B referred to the policy and confirmed that she had good knowledge of the contents as she was the author of the policy. She confirmed that the policy is available to all HCA staff on the internal intranet. In terms of reclaimable expenses Colleague B said that money could be reimbursed if for example two employees were dining together or an employee was paying for a meal for a potential client, but this would require the claimant to name the person who they dined with due to company tax implications and anti-bribery requirements In order to capture this type of information, the SAP-Concur system required the claimant to populate the field entitled ‘Attendees’ and if this field was not populated, the system would not move to the next stage. The Panel had sight of the screenshot of the SAP-Concur system as an exhibit to Colleague B’s statement and therefore noted that under the sub heading ‘Attendees (other than yourself)’, the Registrant has typed ‘n/a’.
91. As with its findings in relation to Particular 1(a) and 1(b), the Panel considered the evidence from Colleague B in relation to the policy to be reliable. The Panel concluded from the policy, that when dining out during her training in London, the Registrant would have been entitled to claim up to £75 per day for her meal but would not have been entitled to claim for her relative, a non-employee of HCA, as made clear in paragraph 5.6.3 of the policy. In cross-examination the Registrant accepted that her relative did not work for the company and that regardless of the policy common-sense would indicate that a company would not pay for meals for employee’s relatives.
92. In conclusion, the Panel found that on the balance of probabilities, that on 26 May 2021, whilst working for HCA, contrary to her employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy, the Registrant submitted expense claims for meals, which included meals other than for her, when, she dined at a restaurant named Fish Works on 22 May 2021. FOUND PROVED.
Particular 1
‘On 26 May 2021, whilst working for Hospital Corporate of America Healthcare ('HCA'), contrary to your employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy, you submitted expense claims for meals, which included meals other than for you, when
d) you dined at a restaurant named Wulfe & Lambe on 25 May 2021;’
93. As with the decision at Particulars 1(a),1(b) and 1(c) the Panel took into account that there was no dispute that at the relevant time the Registrant was working for HCA.
94. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant had dined at Wulfe & Lambe on 25 May 2021. It is not disputed by the Registrant that she dined at the Wulfe & Lambe restaurant on 25 May 2021.
95. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant had submitted expense claims for meals as set out in the stem of the particular. It is not disputed by the Registrant that she did submit claims for reimbursement of expenses for meals whilst she was in London training. The Panel relied on the evidence of Colleague B in finding that the Registrant had submitted an expense claim for a meal at Wulfe & Lambe where she had dined on 25 May 2021. For the reasons set out in relation to the other Particulars the Panel placed significant weight on the evidence of Colleague B which included providing documentary evidence of the SAP-Concur system. One of Colleague B’s exhibits is a screen shot of the Registrant’s entry on the SAP-Concur system. This exhibit shows the Registrant claiming for expenses from 19 May 2021 to 26 May 2021. Included in the list of expenses is an entry for the 25 May 2021 which indicates the expense as UK Dinner Allowance ‘wulf & lambe’, with an amount entered of ‘£71.03’. Colleague B’s second witness statement confirms that the claims were submitted on 26 May 2021 at 22:34 by the Registrant, and a screenshot from the SAP-Concur system showing the claim audit trail is exhibited.
96. The Panel next considered whether the expense claim for the meal at Wulfe & Lambe which the Registrant submitted included meals other than for her. The Panel did not find that the HCPC had provided sufficient evidence to prove that on balance, the meal at Wulfe & Lambe had included meals other than for the Registrant.
97. In reaching its decision that Panel took into account that Colleague B states that on reviewing the Registrant’s claims, she ‘noted that the food listed on four of the receipts looked excess for one person. There were four receipts that contained food in quantities that was two of each course. These were the meals at … Wulf & Lambe on 25 May. In the expenses claim submitted by the Registrant, there is the option to put if there were any extra attendees. On the Registrant’s submitted claims, this was stated as “Not Applicable.” The Registrant further added a comment that stated “Please note there was no other attendees other than myself. I couldn’t submit the claim without adding the required field.” The comment box was a required field to submit a claim.’ The Panel noted that Colleague B exhibits a screenshot of the SAP-Concur system which shows the comment made by the Registrant in relation to there being no other attendees.
98. In oral evidence Colleague B confirmed that what concerned her about the Registrant’s claim was not the cost, but the volume of food, which was “a lot of food” itemised. Colleague B explained that from experience other receipts tend to include a starter, a main, and a desert, along with a drink such as a glass of wine, water, or a tea/coffee. Colleague B said that from her initial review of the Registrant’s expenses four of the receipts had more than one dinner for example two starters, two mains and two deserts.
99. The Panel noted that, unlike the Berto restaurant, the Panel had not had sight of a photograph of the receipt. In addition, the Panel noted that Colleague B’s more thorough review of the expenses, had not included contacting the Wulfe & Lambe restaurant and thus there was no corroborating evidence that the Registrant was at the restaurant with another person.
100. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant denied Particular 1 (d), and she maintained this stance during cross-examination. The Panel considered the Registrant’s explanation provided during cross-examination to be detailed and plausible as a result of that detail. The Registrant said she recalled dining alone at Wulfe & Lambe and that whilst dining she watched a Disney film as she thought it was appropriate for where she was. She explained that when dining alone she often watches films or listens to music. She also recalled that during this meal she was telephoned by her manager ‘Person S' who had called to ‘check in’ on her. She said that she had spent most of the meal speaking to her manager. Later in cross-examination, the Registrant said that she did not remember what she had ordered other than she knew that she had two deserts as she could not decide which desert to choose. She explained it was a nice restaurant and she got ‘excited’ and ordered lots due to wanting to ‘try everything’. She recalled one of the deserts was a carrot cake which she had taken away with her to eat later on. When asked by Ms Collins if she could be sure she was alone, the Registrant replied to say that she had already ‘shot herself’ in accepting she had dined with others in relation to 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), so what would be the point in denying this Particular. When Ms Collins asked whether the Registrant was choosing to deny 1(d) as there is no extra supportive evidence for it, the Registrant replied to say that is the same for Plum Valley. The Panel noted that the only restaurants contacted by Colleague B were Berto and Fishworks.
101. Whilst it is not for the Registrant to prove or disprove anything, the Panel considered the veracity of her account with the other evidence in the bundle. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s account accords with the notes made during the HCA fact finding investigation, in which the Registrant ultimately accepts that it was three meals where she had someone with her, and she claimed both meals through expenses. The Panel also considered the email sent by Colleague B to the Registrant on 02 June 2021 in which she raised a number of queries. In relation to the meal on 25 May 2021, the email states that ‘the receipt shows two starters, two drinks, two dips and two deserts. The Panel took into account that the meal did not include any main courses and it would therefore be entirely feasible for the Registrant to have eaten alone.
102. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel did not find that on 26 May 2021, whilst working for HCA, that contrary to her employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy, the Registrant submitted expense claims for meals, which included meals other than for her, when, she dined at a restaurant named Wulfe & Lambe on 25 May 2021.FOUND NOT PROVED
Particular 2:
‘Your conduct in relation to particulars 1 (a) and/or 1(b) and/or 1(c) and/or 1(d) was dishonest in that you knew that you had claimed for meals for other persons who had been present and you were aware these were not claimable expenses.’
103. Having found 1(d) not proved the Panel only considered Particular 2 in so far as it related to 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c).
104. Whilst in its deliberations the Panel considered each part of the Particular in so far as it related to 1(a), (b), and (c) separately, its findings and the rationale for them applies across the board and is therefore amalgamated.
105. The Panel considered the oral and written evidence and took into account the legal test on dishonesty as set out within case law and the HCPTS Practice Note. The Panel first considered what the actual state of the Registrant’s knowledge or belief was as to the facts in which the alleged dishonesty arose. The Panel then went on to consider the question of whether the conduct was honest or dishonest by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people with full knowledge of the facts of the case.
106. The dishonesty alleged in this Particular relates to the claims which the Registrant made for meals for other persons who had been present with her. The HCPC submit that the Registrant was aware that these were not claimable expenses and thus by submitting the claims she acted dishonestly.
107. The Panel has already found that the Registrant did submit claims for three meals where either a relative or a friend was present with her, and that the claims included meals other than for her.
108. The Panel then considered what the Registrant knew or believed as to the facts and circumstances in which the alleged dishonesty arose.
109. The Panel considered the evidence in relation to the issue first being raised with the Registrant about her expense claims. The Panel took into account the contemporaneous email sent by the Registrant on 27 May 2021 at 13:47 to Colleague A, which is provided as an exhibit by Colleague A. The email states, ‘The evening expenses is only for myself, the comcor system requires me to put attendees on the expense, would you like me to just apply my details in that section? Otherwise it doesn’t allow me to submit the claim?.’ In direct response to that email, at 14:12 on the same date, Colleague A replied to say that, ‘It looked as though one of the receipts was for 2 people as seemed to have 2 meals and drinks etc?- …Happy to approve once you resubmit them just with a bit of an explanation if there were 2 people.’ The Registrant then responded at 14:47 to say that ‘I have made the changed as requested to the taxi expense. As for the meals, I am in London by myself and as embarrassing as it sounds I do eat quite a bit. I am the lonely person that eats and dines alone. Some Portion sizes down her are a little on the small side. I am sorry if this has caused some confusion? As I am dining for one; what would you recommend I put in the attendee section?.’
110. The Panel also took into account the relatively contemporaneous email sent by the Registrant to Colleague B on 02 June 2021 at 18:23 which is exhibited to Colleague B’s witness statement. This email is in response to an email from Colleague B sent at 14:29 on the same day. In Colleague B’s email she asks a series of questions which are prefixed with a number. Number 4 relates to dinner on 20 May 2021 and asks the Registrant to confirm that she was the only attendee at this meal as the receipt shows ‘2 starters, 2 main meals and 2 deserts being charged for’. Number 7 relates to dinner on 22 May 2021 and asks the Registrant to confirm if she dined with an HCA employee and if so to please provide their name so that their concur can be reconciled. The Registrant’s email sets out her response to each question raised with her in accordance with the numbers set out by Colleague B’s email. In response to number 4 and number 7 the Registrant provides a single response to both numbers. The Registrant states ‘Most of the receipts will look like there was another person with me, however, I was sent down to London alone. I am aware that the receipts may look otherwise but the portion sizes in London are not particularly adequate.’
111. The Panel also took into account the HCA fact finding investigation notes from 10 June 2021. During this meeting, the Registrant was asked by Colleague C in the presence of the HCA HR staff member whether she was stating that all these meals she had were when she was on her own and no one was with her. The Registrant replied to say ‘Yes, I was on my own at all the times.’ When she was confronted with the additional evidence from the Fish works restaurant, that they had reviewed their cameras which had showed her dining with someone else, she then admitted that she did have someone with her. The Registrant also then said she did not know how to split the bill, and that it was the first time she had used the expense system and that it was an honest mistake. She repeated that she was not sure how to claim it on the system. When asked further questions by Colleague C, the Registrant then admitted that there were maybe two occasions when she had eaten with someone else, and when asked if she was sure she then said, ‘well 3’.
112. The Panel noted that SAP Concur System exhibited a screen shot relating to a restaurant called, Kibele in the amount of £45.62 which is not relevant to the Allegation. However, listed along the left-hand side of this SAP Concur System exhibited screen shot are other restaurants including Berto, Plum Valley and Fish Works together with the specific amount claimed. The Registrant entered details onto the SAP-Concur system to state that ‘there were no other attendees other than myself. I couldn’t submit the claim without adding this required field.’ Colleague B stated that the annotated text relevant to the Kibele entry was the 'master' which would have been 'pulled through' and applied to all of the expense claims, as listed down the left hand side. The Registrant told the Panel that she had not appreciated that this would happen, namely that the text that she wrote relevant to the Kibele entry would be pulled through in this way to all entries down the left hand side. Irrespective of this, the Panel did not consider the Registrant’s evidence to be consistent with the Registrant's subsequent emails to Colleagues A and B and the first part of the information that she shared during the HCA Fact Finding meeting.
113. At the start of the hearing the Registrant denied that she had acted dishonesty but asked the Panel to consider the denial in the context of her written reflection which relates to her making a mistake and not being in a good [REDACTED] at the time of the events.
114. The Panel accepted that the Registrant is a person of good character and that she had provided positive character references attesting to her honesty and integrity. However, the Panel had regard to the fact that the Registrant had provided a number of different explanations for her alleged conduct and considered that her responses are inconsistent and are not inherently plausible.
115. The Registrant stated to Colleague A, Colleague B and Colleague C, as per the emails and meeting referenced above, that she had dined alone and only claimed for herself. In cross examination the Registrant could not recall sending the emails although accepted she must have done as they were from her account and no-one else had access to her email account. When challenged she was unable to provide an explanation as to why, if she was confused about the policy, she did not raise this at the time with either Colleague A, B or C, until she was confronted in the meeting on 10 June 2021 with the information from the restaurants, that she had dined with another.
116. On 29 June 2021, the Registrant sent a letter of apology to Colleague A which is exhibited to Colleague A’s statement. The letter describes the Registrant making a ‘terrible and stupid’ mistake and sets out a number of personal difficulties that she as experiencing at the time. It does not include any information that she was confused or unsure about the policy or that she had not been aware how to split the claim on the system.
117. The Registrant was asked by the Panel about when her reflective piece was written as it contains no date. The Registrant said that it was written soon after the events but that she has constantly revisited it and updated it. The reflection states ‘When this mistake had occurred; because of my thoughtlessness of not reading the policy thoroughly and asking for advice on the matter. I assumed I could claim up to £75 on evening meals despite dining with another. When I am depressed, I tend to eat my feelings, so, when I dined with the other person I had consumed more than 50% of the meals and felt obligated to pay more for the meal thinking this would be okay to claim. When I received the email asking me about the matter my state of mind was not in the best place; I was feeling alone distraught, emotionally empty. So, when I responded to the email I did so quickly and thoughtlessly giving answers in my warped mindset rather than waiting until I was more settled and possibly calling the person to gain better understanding of the matter.’ The Registrant was asked by the Panel why if she thought she could claim up to £75 despite dining with another she had not said this in her emails with Colleague A and B, instead of consistently indicating that she had dined alone. The Registrant said that she did not know why other than she was not thinking at the time. She accepted that her email sent on 27 May 2021 to Colleague A indicated that it appeared she knew that she could not include within her submitted expense claim, meals other than for her. She told the Panel that she did not read the email properly or reply back correctly.
118. In cross-examination in relation to dishonestly claiming money to which she was not entitled, Ms Collins asked the Registrant if she was sorry. She replied saying that she was sorry for making a ridiculous mistake which could have been avoided if she had done her due diligence and read the policy or got in touch with someone. When asked by Ms Collins if she was sorry for lying, the Registrant replied ‘yes.’
119. The Panel considered that on all the evidence before it, the Registrant must have understood, having accepted that she did have access to the policy, and in accordance with as Ms Collins described ‘common sense’, that she could not make expenses claims for reimbursement of money relating to her friend or relative’s meals. The Panel concluded that if the Registrant was confused about what she could have claimed, or if she had made a mistake when entering the expense, she had ample opportunity to raise this. She was asked on several separate occasions to clarify her expenses, firstly by Colleague A on 27 May, then by Colleague B on 02 and 03 June and finally by Colleague C on 10 June 2021. It was not until she was challenged with the knowledge of the Fish works CCTV evidence that she admitted to dining with another and claiming for them. The Panel considered that the Registrant knew that she had dined with others and that she had claimed for their meals as well as her own. The Panel considered that her repeated stance that she had dined alone was motivated by an attempt to cover up her actions as she knew that she should have only claimed for her own meals. In reaching its view the Panel took into account that the Registrant had admitted during cross-examination that she had lied.
120. The Panel concluded that taking into account the Registrant’s understanding of the circumstances, as set out above, an ordinary decent person would find the conduct as dishonest. The Panel considered that making claims for money for meals for others, to which you are not entitled, then seeking to cover that up by repeatedly lying to say that you had dined alone would be held to be dishonest upon an objective test. FOUND PROVED.
‘3. Whilst employed with HCA you:
a) Sent two emails to Colleague A on 27 May 2021 stating the expenses claims, related to particular 1, were incurred due to dining alone or words to that effect;’
121. The Panel considered the email chain between Colleague A and the Registrant which is dated 27 May 2021, and which was exhibited to Colleague A’s statement. Colleague A was not present to give oral evidence, and the Panel had already admitted her statement as hearsay. The first email is sent by the Registrant to Colleague A at 13:47 on 27 May 2021. This states, ‘The evening expenses is only for myself, the comcor system requires me to put attendees on the expense, would you like me to just apply my details in that section? Otherwise it doesn’t allow me to submit the claim?.’
122. In direct response to that email, at 14:12 on the same date, Colleague A replied to say that, ‘It looked as though one of the receipts was for 2 people as seemed to have 2 meals and drinks etc?- …Happy to approve once you resubmit them just with a bit of an explanation if there were 2 people.’
123. The second email was sent by the Registrant at 14:47 on the same date, and states that ‘I have made the changed as requested to the taxi expense. As for the meals, I am in London by myself and as embarrassing as it sounds I do eat quite a bit. I am the lonely person that eats and dines alone. Some Portion sizes down her are a little on the small side. I am sorry if this has caused some confusion? As I am dining for one; what would you recommend I put in the attendee section?.’
124. Despite it being hearsay evidence, the Panel placed significant weight on the statement as it exhibits the contemporaneous emails in question. Whilst the Registrant did not recall the contents of the emails, she did not deny that she sent them and said that no one else had access to her emails. The Registrant admitted the Particular at the outset of the hearing and during cross-examination accepted that the emails suggested that she was dining alone.
125. The Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did send two emails to Colleague A on 27 May 2021 stating the expenses claims, related to Particular 1, were incurred due to dining alone or words to that effect. FOUND PROVED.
‘b) Sent an email to Colleague B on 2 June 2021 stating the expenses claims, related to particular 1, were incurred due to dining alone or words to that effect;’
126. The Panel had regard to and relied on the statement of Colleague B which exhibits an email exchange between herself and the Registrant. The exhibit shows that on 02 June 2021 at 14:29, Colleague B emailed the Registrant with a series of numbered questions in relation to the Registrant’s ‘claim in Concur for ‘Evening meals’.’ In relation to the dinner on 20 May 2021, the Registrant is specifically asked in the email if she was the only attendee at this meal. In relation to the meal on 22 May 2021 she was asked to confirm whether she dined with an HCA employee, and if so, to provide their name.
127. The Panel took into account Colleague B’s exhibit which provides a copy of the email sent by the Registrant to Colleague B on 02 June at 18:23 responding to the questions raised. The email states that ‘Most of the receipts will look like there was another person with me, however, I was sent down to London alone. I am aware that the receipts may look otherwise but the portion sizes in London are not particularly adequate.’
128. The evidence of Colleague B accords with the admission of the Registrant made at the outset of the hearing. In cross-examination the Registrant accepted that the wording of the email she sent to Colleague B would look as though she was eating alone.
129. The Panel therefore found on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did send an email to Colleague B on 02 June 2021 stating the expenses claims, related to Particular 1, were incurred due to dining alone or words to that effect. FOUND PROVED.
c) Told Investigators in a fact-finding meeting on 10 June 2021 that the expenses claims relating to particular 1 were incurred due to dining alone or words to that effect.’
130. The Panel relied on the evidence of Colleague C which exhibited the notes taken during the HCA fact finding investigation held on 10 June 2021. Whilst Colleague C acknowledged she did not make the notes, she did confirm that she had seen the notes the day after the meeting and was content that they provided a fair reflection of what was said in the meeting. Whilst the Registrant did ask Colleague C a number of questions in cross-examination, she did not seek to dispute the content of notes.
131. The Panel considered the exhibited notes which state that the HR Manager had ‘opened the meeting explaining that this was an investigation into some anomalies found in [the Registrant’s] claimed expenses.’ The notes state that the Registrant was asked questions by Colleague C in relation to the email correspondence between the Registrant and Colleague A and thereafter the email correspondence between the Registrant and Colleague B.
132. In the notes Colleague C puts to the Registrant that Colleague A challenged the receipts by saying ‘it looks like you are claiming for 2 people here given the receipts and you confirmed back by email to [Colleague A] that it was just you and it was down to the fact that meals in London are rather small and that you ate a lot you had to order 2 of everything to satisfy yourself.’ The notes show that the Registrant replied ‘yes.’ Colleague C then puts to the Registrant that an email was sent to the Registrant by Colleague B querying the same receipts and that the Registrant again confirmed that the meals were just for her. The notes show that the Registrant replied ‘yes.’
133. The notes show that immediately after those points being put to the Registrant she is then asked, ‘and again in front of the 2 of us here and now you state that all these meals you had were when you were on your own and no one was with you’. The notes show that the Registrant replied ‘yes, I was on my own at all the times.’
134. The Panel considered that it was clear from the notes that the Registrant would have been aware that the questions being posed to her related to the meals she had claimed for in London, as set out in Particular 1. The response of the Registrant suggested that she was on her own at all times.
135. The evidence of Colleague C accords with the admission made by the Registrant at the outset of the hearing. In cross-examination the Registrant accepted that she did say the words alleged as at this point in the meeting she had “panicked and just rambled out ‘at all times’”.
136. On the basis of the evidence above, on balance the Panel found that the Registrant did tell Investigators in a fact-finding meeting on 10 June 2021 that the expenses claims relating to Particular 1 were incurred due to dining alone or words to that effect. FOUND PROVED.
‘4. Your conduct in relation to particulars 3 (a) and/or 3 (b) and/or 3(c) was dishonest in that you knew you had dined with another person and claimed expenses for two meals contrary to your employer's Corporate Travel and Expenses Policy but stated that you had dined alone, when you knew this to be untrue.’
137. The Panel took into account that this Particular arises from the same events as in relation to the dishonesty pleaded at Particular 2 but specifically relates to the Registrant not only claiming meals contrary to the employer’s expenses policy but then stating she had dined alone when she knew this to be untrue.
138. In relation to its consideration of the evidence, the Panel relied on the factors already set out in its decision in relation to Particular 2, as it found the evidence overlaps both Particulars.
139. Having found that the Registrant did send the emails as referred to in Particulars 3 (a), (b), and (c), the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s actions in doing so were dishonest. The Panel considered the Registrant’s state of mind when sending the two emails to Colleague A on 27 May 2021, the email to Colleague B on 2 June 2021 and what the Registrant told the investigators in a fact-finding meeting on 10 June 2021. The Registrant knew she had not dined alone: on one occasion she had dined with a friend and that on two occasions she had dined with a relative. The Registrant has admitted Particulars 1a), 1b) and 1c). Therefore, the contents of her emails in stating that she dined alone (or words to that effect) were untruthful. The Panel took into account that it was only when the Registrant was challenged with further evidence in relation to the CCTV during the investigation meeting on 10 June 2021 that she made admissions. The Panel also considered that the Registrant had the motivation to be dishonest as she knew that she had claimed for expenses to which she was not entitled and therefore sought to cover her conduct by continuing to untruthfully state, as detailed within admitted Particulars 3a), 3b) and 3c), that she had dined alone.
140. In terms of whether the Registrant’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people, the Panel concluded that by stating that you had dined alone, when she knew this was untrue, would be held to be dishonest upon an objective test. FOUND PROVED.
Decision on Grounds
141. Ms Collins provided written submissions in relation to misconduct. Ms Collins’ written submissions stated that the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by the Registrant would have been the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics which came into effect in January 2016. Ms Collins invited the Panel to consider the standards as a whole, but in particular drew the Panel’s attention to:
‘Be Honest and Trustworthy
Standard 9.1:
You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public's trust and confidence in you and your profession.
Standard 9.6:
You must co-operate with any investigation into your conduct or competence, the conduct or competence of others, or the care, treatment or other services provided to service users.’
142. Ms Collins submitted that taken together or individually, the behaviour outlined in the facts found proved amounts to misconduct in that it constitutes a serious falling short of what would be proper in the circumstances. Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant’s conduct in acting inappropriately in terms of her expenses claims and on multiple occasions being dishonest to her employer in the investigation that followed is clearly a serious departure from the standards expected of a registered Operating Department Practitioner. Ms Collins submitted that the conduct reflects a pattern of behaviour and an attitudinal concern.
143. Ms Collins’ written submission drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s reflection statement and oral evidence about her difficult personal circumstances at the time of these incidents. Although the Registrant stated that these factors impacted on her decision-making, Ms Collins submitted that this portion of the Registrant’s evidence ought to play a limited role when the Panel are assessing whether her actions amount to misconduct, as was recognised by the Court of Appeal in R (Campbell) v General Medical Council [2005] 1 W. L. R 3488.
144. Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant’s conduct would be considered deplorable by fellow members of the profession, and invited the Panel to find that the Registrants conduct crossed the threshold of misconduct.
145. The Registrant gave oral submissions. In summary she said:
• She had denied some of the Allegation as she had wanted more clarity.
• She agreed that she was impaired at the time.
• She understood the implications her actions had on colleagues, the profession, and the public.
• The events have halted her career and stopped her seeking a permanent position.
• She has been allowed by the HCPC to practise with no restrictions.
• She has undertaken an ethics course and has discussed the events in her therapy sessions over the last couple of years.
• She has willingly co-operated with the HCPC throughout and has done her best to remediate and apologise for her actions.
• She promised the Panel it would never happen again.

146. The Panel asked some questions of clarification. The Registrant said that she had been working as an ODP through two agencies although her work has more recently been ad hoc, including an non-qualified administrative role, as she has been preparing for this hearing.
147. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to Misconduct, which it must consider in the event, it finds one or more of the facts found proved. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of Roylance v GMC (no.2) [2000] AC 311 and to the HCPC Standards. The Legal Assessor advised that there was no settled definition of misconduct, and it was for the Panel to say in the circumstances of the case whether the behaviour, if found proven, crossed the threshold properly to be categorised as misconduct. The Panel could approach the question by deciding whether an act or omission on the part of the Registrant represented a serious falling short of the standards to be expected of a HCPC registrant. However, it is important to note that not every omission or wrongdoing necessarily constitutes Misconduct.
148. The Panel at all times kept in mind the HCPC’s overarching objective of protecting the public which includes protecting services users, protecting public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
149. The Panel took into account the HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics. The panel bore in mind that a departure from the Standards alone does not necessarily constitute misconduct.
150. The Panel concluded that the behaviours of the Registrant in relation to facts: 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2, 3 and 4 do individually and collectively amount to serious professional misconduct.
151. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour fell far below the standards expected of a registered ODP. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, in particular standards:
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
9.6 You must co-operate with any investigation into your conduct or competence, the conduct or competence of others, or the care, treatment or other services provided to service users.’
152. Based on the findings, the Panel considered that the misconduct falls into two interlinked areas relating to one event: i) dishonestly claiming for meals for another contrary to the policy, and ii) dishonesty when challenged about the expense claims.
153. In relation to the dishonesty, in claiming reimbursement that she was not entitled to claim, the Panel took into account that the Registrant had done this in relation to meals on three separate occasions, towards Colleagues, A, B and C. The Panel considered that falsely describing a situation to justify an expense claim, which you are otherwise not entitled, is serious and took into account that his had occurred within the Registrant’s work. The Registrant’s conduct demonstrates a disregard for the trust that is placed in professional employees who are expected to act with honesty and integrity.
154. The Panel considered that the conduct in dishonestly claiming for the meals for another, contrary to the policy, was exacerbated by the dishonest responses the Registrant gave when the company raised issues about the expenses. The Registrant was given numerous opportunities to be honest about dining with another, firstly when Colleague A raised queries in emails about the expense claims, secondly when Colleague B raised queries in her emails, and thirdly when Colleague C asked the Registrant at the start of the investigation meeting. Instead, the Registrant, who knew she had not dined alone, and that she had submitted claims for both meals on three occasions, did not admit to that conduct until she was told that the restaurants had been contacted., The Panel considered that even if service users are not directly affected, dishonesty is generally recognised as one of the most serious forms of misconduct.
155. The Registrant has provided oral and written mitigation [REDACTED]. However, the Panel concluded that she had not provided any reasonable or logical justification for breaching the HCPC Standards. The Panel considered that the facts found proven would be seen as far below what is expected by fellow practitioners and concluded that individually and cumulatively, they amount to misconduct.
Decision on Impairment
156. Ms Collins provided the Panel with written submissions in relation to impairment. Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant was entitled to enter a denial to particulars 2 and 4 but that these have now been found by the Panel. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel may think the Registrant had denied dishonesty on the basis she had in fact made a mistake and failed to understand company policy, but that the Panel found in its determination to date, her account was inconsistent and not inherently plausible. Ms Collins submitted that in terms of the rejected defence the Panel may think the Registrant failed to tell her account in a better light but that on examination her account was rejected. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel may, however, think that in the Registrant’s cross examination she partially accepted dishonesty given she accepted she had lied.
157. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel may think the Registrant has demonstrated some insight from her oral/ written submissions and reflection statement however the Panel may be of the opinion this is not yet fully formed or is developing. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel may think that the Registrant has not yet accepted her dishonesty in full and continues to justify her actions by way of a mistake.
158. Ms Collins drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s bundle and the fact that she has admitted to some of the Particulars, at the start of proceedings, which the Panel may see as partial insight.
159. Ms Collins submitted that whilst the Registrant has completed a number of courses, the Panel may think that these courses fail to adequately address all of the misconduct, for instance, being honest and trustworthy. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel may think these are attitudinal issues that cannot be easily resolved, if at all.
160. Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant's dishonest behaviour was repeated over some weeks, towards multiple persons, in multiple forms and only did her account change once she was made aware of evidence to the contrary. Ms Collins submitted that it was a matter for the Panel to make an assessment as to whether it is satisfied the Registrant has shown sufficient insight and remediation so as to reduce the risk of repetition.
161. Ms Collin’s submitted that if a finding of impairment were not made in this case, public trust in the profession, the regulator and the upholding of proper professional standards could be significantly undermined. Ms Collins stated that submitting false expenses claims and repeatedly being dishonest when questioned by one's employer must be decried by the Regulator and which, if public confidence in the profession is to be maintained, must be marked.
162. The Registrant provided oral submissions as set out at paragraph 145.
163. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to impairment. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel to take into account that it should have regard to both the personal and public components and keep in mind the wider public interest. The Panel referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ dated November 2023. The Panel was referred to the cases of, CHRE v (1) NMC & (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 [Admin], Cheatle v GMC (2009) EWHC 645 (Admin), Bolton v Law Society 1993, PSA v HCPC + Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 and The General Medical Council v Armstrong [2021] EWHC 1658 (Admin).
164. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal perspective and then from the wider public perspective. The Panel also had regard to whether the conduct in this case is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated.
165. In deciding impairment, the Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant. The Panel considered whether:
a- The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.
b- The Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.
c- The Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.
d-The Registrant has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future.
166. In relation to the first component the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct, as found by the Panel, in the past did not place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.
167. In relation to the question of whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined she had. A significant aspect of public interest is upholding proper standards of behaviour so as not to bring the profession into disrepute. The dishonest narrative that the Registrant provided to HCA, and which she committed to, until she was challenged with contrary evidence in the fact-finding meeting, did bring the profession into disrepute.
168. In finding that the Registrant did not conduct herself in such a way as to adhere to the HCPC professional standards, the Panel determined that she had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The Panel considered that honesty and integrity are fundamental tenets of ODP practice.
169. In relation to the fourth component, the Panel determined that the Registrant had in the past acted dishonestly and had done so on numerous occasions in relation to the same events.
170. The Panel considered the extent to which the misconduct in this case can be, and has been, remediated by the Registrant and whether it is likely to be repeated.
171. The Panel kept in mind that concerns that raise questions of character such as dishonesty may be harder to remediate. However, the Panel did think that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct could be remediated albeit difficult as it relates to an attitudinal concern. Whilst the Panel considered that all dishonesty is serious, it did not find the conduct in this case to be the most grave. Although the misconduct was not a single act and was repeated, it did not occur over a prolonged period, nor did it result in any direct patient harm.
172. The Panel took into account the written reflections provided by the Registrant which were supplemented by her oral evidence and oral submissions. In relation to the dishonest conduct the Panel noted the Registrant’s account, [REDACTED]. The Panel kept in mind that the Registrant is of good character and these events have been a one-off in her career and appear out of character for her. However, whilst the Registrant has accepted that her behaviour fell below professional standards, the Panel was not confident that the Registrant fully understood how and why it occurred. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s responses to date including her denials of dishonesty paint a mixed and confusing picture of her mindset.
173. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant demonstrates only limited insight. Since the time of the events, the Registrant has provided a number of different explanations and rationale for her behaviour. The explanations include the Registrant saying that she was usure how to split the expense claim, that she had failed to read the policy properly and assumed she could dine with another providing it was for under £75, and that she had consumed more than 50% of the meals and therefore felt obliged to pay more. Whilst the Registrant was entitled to deny the allegations of dishonesty, the Panel considered that her rejected defence was a failed attempt to tell the story in a better light and that on examination her account was rejected.
174. The Registrant has included in her written reflections that she ‘understood that even though this matter may not be clinical the actions that were taken were dishonest and because of this can cause concern in my practice as it undermines the conducts laid out by the HCPC that as an ODP I agree to’. The Registrant also accepted in cross-examination that she was sorry for lying. However, the Registrant has on a number of occasions including during oral evidence continued to describe the facts giving rise to these proceedings as “a mistake”. In cross-examination the Registrant said that she was “sorry for making a ridiculous mistake” which she said could have been avoided if she had done “due diligence” and “read the policy” and got in touch with someone. It was only when asked directly was she “sorry for lying?” that she replied “yes”. The Panel considered that it is only in situations when the Registrant is directly confronted with the reality does she make admissions of what she did. The Panel considered that overall, the Registrant’s responses present as her seeking to minimise her misconduct and for that reason her insight is limited. The Panel concluded that without having full insight into the cause of her behaviour, she could not be said to have fully remediated.
175. The Panel noted that the Registrant has demonstrated some understanding of the consequences her conduct had or could have had on colleagues, her employer and the wider public, and she has also shown remorse for her conduct. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has, by her own account, [REDACTED]. However, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant was able to articulate exactly what it was she would do differently should the situation occur again.
176. The Panel took account of the multiple positive testimonials provided by the Registrant contained in the bundle. Some of the testimonials acknowledge an awareness of the HCPC Investigation and nonetheless describe the Registrant in a positive light. Her manager in one of her non-OPD roles, states that he has ‘the utmost confidence in [the Registrant’s] abilities and character’, and her former manager in the ODP role at HCA describes her as ‘honest, respectful and hard working’. Whilst the Panel recognised the experience of the authors of the character references is that the Registrant is honest, the Panel has found that there was sustained dishonesty in relation to the events giving rise to the Allegation. Firstly, in claiming expenses for meals for which she was not entitled to claim and secondly by maintaining that she had dined alone until she was presented with oral information from Colleague C that the restaurants had been contacted and said otherwise.
177. The Panel considered whether the misconduct was likely to be repeated by the Registrant. The Panel took into account all it had read and heard about the misconduct. It kept in mind the Registrant’s partial admissions, her engagement with the HCPC process and her assertion that this behaviour would not be repeated. However, the Panel were not assured that the risk of repetition was low. The facts found in relation to the dishonesty show that the Registrant had several opportunities to set the record straight, but she failed to take them. She only admitted to the dishonesty when she was presented with the uncovering of facts by the HCA. Furthermore, despite having completed a ‘Probity and Ethics course’ on 05 November 2023, the Registrant still appears unable to recognise that her actions were dishonest. The Panel were concerned that if the Registrant is still unable to admit and accept that what she did was dishonest, albeit at a time when [REDACTED], then there remains a potential for the Registrant to behave dishonestly again if subject to the same circumstances. The Panel were not assured that the Registrant would be honest in the future if she found herself in a similar position. By referring to her behaviour as a mistake and saying that she does ‘silly things under pressure’, the Registrant is still failing to recognise her fundamental dishonesty. It is the failure to acknowledge her dishonesty which presents a future risk of harm to patients. The evidence suggests that whilst under personal pressures, the Registrant acted dishonestly including trying to ‘cover up’ what she had done, and whilst the misconduct was not directly related to clinical practice, the Panel identified a potential risk to the public arising from a dishonest practitioner.
178. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently personally impaired on the grounds of her misconduct.
179. The Panel next considered whether a finding of current impairment was necessary in the public interest. The Panel was mindful that the public interest encompassed not only public protection but also the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. It took into account the guidance in the Grant case:- ‘In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.’
180. The Panel considered its findings in relation to misconduct including the findings of dishonesty. The Panel took into account that ODP’s hold privileged positions of trust. It is essential that the public can trust ODP’s. Abuse of trust by way of dishonesty against an employer is a serious and unacceptable risk in terms of confidence in the profession.
181. The Panel considered that members of the public, even if they knew that the Registrant had remained in competent and positive practice, would be concerned if the Regulator were not to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct with a finding of current impairment on public interest grounds. The Panel considered that not to make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise in relation to those matters would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would fail to uphold and declare proper standards.
182. The Panel therefore decided on the public interest element of impairment that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
Decision on Sanction
183. Ms Collins provided the Panel with written submissions drawing the Panel’s attention to the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The primary function of any sanction is to protect the public. Sanctions are not intended to punish registrants, but instead ensure the public is protected. Inevitably, a sanction may be punitive in effect but should not be imposed simply for that purpose. All sanctions are open to the Panel. In oral submission, Ms Collins stated that the HCPC are neutral in respect of sanction.
184. The Registrant submitted that she is [REDACTED]. She stated that she can only apologise for what she has done and whatever condition or sanction is imposed, she will uphold. The Registrant confirmed that she truly enjoys her role as an ODP and would like to secure a permanent position and achieve stability.
185. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which states that any sanction must be proportionate, is not intended to be punitive and should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public, to protect the reputation of the profession, maintain confidence in the regulatory system and declare and uphold proper professional standards. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its primary function at this stage is to protect the public, while deciding what, if any, sanction is proportionate, taking into account the wider public interest and the interests of the Registrant. In respect of the Panel’s findings of dishonesty, the Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s to paragraphs 56-58 of the Sanctions Policy and reminded the Panel that the case law in relation to dishonesty make plain that a finding of dishonesty will always be considered to be serious and to risk serious consequences. However, a more nuanced approach should be taken to dishonesty, and dishonest conduct can take various forms; some criminal, some not; some destroying trust instantly, others merely undermining it to a greater or lesser extent. Not all cases of proven dishonesty will lead to strike off.
Panel’s decision
186. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining what sanction, if any, to impose.
187. The Panel has found that the Registrant has not recognised the misconduct identified in the proved Allegation, namely dishonesty. There has been no meaningful insight and no reflection upon the Panel findings in relation to the dishonesty.
188. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:
• The repeated dishonesty to Colleagues A, B and C, in writing and orally (May to June 2021).
• The Panel has found the Registrant has not shown full insight into the proved facts. She has sought to minimise the nature of her misconduct. The registrant frequently referred to her misconduct as a mistake and within her written reflection has referred to her ‘thoughtlessness of not reading the policy thoroughly’.
189. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:
• There was no direct patient harm.
• There have been no previous regulatory matters raised against the Registrant and none since the referral to HCPC dated 6 August 2021, since when the Registrant has remained in unrestricted practice for two years.
• No concerns have been raised regarding the Registrant’s professional competence. Indeed, the Panel had sight of numerous professional references attesting to the Registrant’s skills and expertise as an ODP (including written references from her current agency dated 01 December 2023 and a written reference from a former manager at HCA).
• Her difficult personal circumstances in 2021.
• There was no financial loss to her employer, as the HCA amended the Registrant's expenses claim accordingly.
190. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states: ‘The Standards of conduct, performance and ethics require registrants to be honest and trustworthy (Standard 9). Dishonesty undermines public confidence in the profession and can, in some cases, impact the public’s safety. Dishonesty, both in and outside the workplace, can have a significant impact on the trust placed in those who have been dishonest, and potentially on public safety. It is likely to lead to more serious sanctions…Given the seriousness of dishonesty, cases are likely to result in more serious sanctions. However, panels should bear in mind that there are different forms, and different degrees, of dishonesty, that need to be considered in an appropriately nuanced way. Factors that panels should take into account in this regard include:
• whether the relevant behaviour took the form of a single act, or occurred on multiple occasions;
• the duration of any dishonesty;
• whether the registrant took a passive or active role in it;
• any early admission of dishonesty on the registrant’s behalf; and
• any other relevant mitigating factors.’

191. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. The final sanction should be a proportionate approach and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public.
192. Due to the serious nature of the misconduct in this case (dishonesty) the Panel considered that taking no further action or mediation would not be appropriate in this case.
193. The Panel next considered whether a caution order would be appropriate. The Panel considered that a caution order would not be in accordance with the HCPC Sanctions 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.’ The HCPC Sanctions Policy also states that a caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which there is: a low risk of repetition; the registrant has shown good insight, and the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation. The Panel considered its earlier decision on impairment and kept in mind it had not found a low risk of repetition, it had not found the Registrant to have good insight, nor did it find that she had fully remediated. In the circumstances the Panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct was too serious for a caution and such a disposal would be contrary to the Sanctions Policy.
194. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states: ‘Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving dishonesty.’ The HCPC Sanctions Policy also states that: ‘There may be circumstances in which a panel considers it appropriate to impose a conditions of practice order in the above cases [dishonesty]. However, it should only do so when it is satisfied that the registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation and unlikely to be repeated’. As stated above, the Panel is not so satisfied.
195. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states: ‘A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register.’
196. The Panel was mindful that it had found a lack of insight and that it did not find that the issues are unlikely to be repeated. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states that a suspension order is likely to be appropriate in types of cases which typically exhibit a number of factors including that the registrant has insight and that the issues are unlikely to be repeated.
197. However, the Panel reminded itself of this section of the HCPC Sanctions Policy ‘…panels should bear in mind that there are different forms, and different degrees, of dishonesty, that need to be considered in an appropriately nuanced way. Factors that panels should take into account in this regard include….any other relevant mitigating factors.’
198. The Panel had identified several mitigating factors as stated above. Taking a nuanced approach, the Panel considered the degree of dishonesty must reflect the numerous mitigating factors, thus placing the dishonesty below the gravest category.
199. The Panel considered whether the case would more properly merit a striking-off order. The Sanctions Policy states: ‘A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process.’
200. The Panel considered a striking-off order would be unduly punitive in this case despite the Registrant’s dishonesty because of the numerous mitigating factors identified above.
201. The Panel considered that the misconduct in this case was such that the requirements of public protection and the wider public interest can be adequately served by imposing a Suspension Order. At present, there is a lack of insight into the Panel’s finding of dishonesty which must be remedied, and a Suspension Order will afford the Registrant the opportunity to do so. All sanction options including a striking-off order will be available to the reviewing panel.
202. In the judgement of the Panel a suspension order is appropriate and proportionate. The Panel kept in mind that the maximum period that it could impose a Suspension Order is for twelve months. The Panel considered that a period of nine months suspension is consistent with the Panel’s finding of dishonesty including its nuanced approach and the numerous mitigating factors. In addition, the Panel considered that a period of nine months suspension would not significantly de-skill the Registrant from her evident proficiency as an ODP.
203. The Panel had regard to proportionality and balanced the public interest against the Registrant’s interests. The Panel took into account the consequential personal, financial and professional impact a Suspension Order may have upon the Registrant, bearing in mind her submissions, but concluded that these considerations are significantly outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to public protection and the wider public interest.
204. The Panel acknowledged that this final Suspension Order will be reviewed by a panel before it expires. Whilst it is not for this Panel in any way to seek to bind the discretion of any reviewing panel, it considered that such a panel might find it helpful for the Registrant to produce, at least 14 days before the next hearing, evidence of the following:
• Demonstration of the Registrant’s insight through a reflective statement, focusing particularly on the Panel’s findings of dishonesty and comments at paragraphs 173 to 177 above. The Registrant needs to demonstrate that she understands that what she did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people and evidence that she has a full understanding of what dishonesty means to the public, the wider profession and the Regulator.
• How she has maintained her continuing professional development.
• Up to date character references, which may include her current employer(s).
205. The reviewing panel is also likely to be assisted by the Registrant’s continued engagement and attendance at the review hearing.
206. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order for nine months is the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Shereen Bano for a period of 9 months from the date this Order comes into effect

This order will be reviewed by the Committee no later than 08 October 2024 or earlier if new evidence which is relevant to the Order becomes available after it was made.

History of Hearings for Shereen Bano