Miss Jade Nguyen

Decision on Facts

17. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Mansell, which it has taken into account together with all the matters raised by the Registrant in the two sets of written representations that were before the Panel.

18. The Panel was also informed by Mr Mansell that apart from the documents in evidence before the Panel, there were no other documents in the case that might assist the Registrant or tend to undermine the HCPC’s case.

19. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it has accepted.

20. The burden of proof lies with the HCPC, and the Panel has considered the particulars of the Allegation against the civil standard of proof, that is to say, the balance of probabilities. In relation to the charge of dishonesty, the Panel has directed itself in accordance with cases that included Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anr v Arkhangelsky [2020] EWCA Civ. 408 at [117]-[119], referring to In re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 and the speech of Lord Hoffman where he referred to a well-known passage from the judgment of Lord Nicholls in In re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563.

21. The Panel directed itself as to the meaning of dishonesty in accordance with Ivey v Genting [2017] UKSC 67 at [74] where Lord Hughes stated –
‘…. When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.’

22. The Panel heard oral evidence from the following persons on behalf of the HCPC, and each gave witness statements: -
SLC - Clinical Director of the Care Tech Cambian Group;
KB (Colleague X) - Senior Assistant Psychologist employed by NHS Trust.
Although the Registrant did not give oral evidence, the Panel took into consideration the matters of fact raised in her two documents, as hearsay evidence.

23. The position of the Registrant as set out in those two documents was put to the witnesses by Mr Mansell, and through Panel questions of those witnesses and further questions from the Legal Assessor.

24. The position of the Registrant may be summarised as follows. She considered that her former employer had let down Person A very badly. The school had ignored her expert advice. The school was more interested in making money from his placement, so its management (SLC) deliberately failed to report Person A’s worrying behaviours. It failed to take other steps to secure his wellbeing, such as engaging with social services. Its management (SLC) did not understand the value of Psychologists and sought to undermine the Registrant in particular. Her position was that ‘ … the management preferred to accuse me of totally untrue things so I would not report the gravity of the situation to social services or other people who could help him reduce his violence ..’ .

25. The following parts of the decision consist of background facts that are relevant to each of the factual particulars of the Allegation. These findings are based on the evidence of KB, which the Panel has accepted on these matters.

26. On 14 January 2021, KB met the Registrant for the first time at School A. KB introduced her to Person A, one of the students with whom she would be working. Person A was a vulnerable young service user who had been diagnosed with autism prior to attending School A. While at the school he had further been diagnosed with Attachment Disorder. Person A was a resident at the school.

27. Person A exhibited a lot of challenging behaviour and struggled to meet new people. When Person A met new people, he would become heightened, pull their hair and start screaming and shouting. KB explained this to the Registrant and provided her with Person A’s file to read prior to the assessment.

28. The Registrant, KB and Person A met in a side room attached to a classroom. The Registrant was asking Person A questions when he suddenly grabbed her hair. KB called for the assistance of a teacher and a teaching assistant. Once Person A let go of the Registrant’s hair, the teacher and the teaching assistant left the room and the Registrant asked Person A what the consequences were for hurting someone, but he did not reply.

29. The meeting ended and the Registrant, KB and the teacher met in the school lobby area. In her witness statement KB explained what happened next: -
‘[the Registrant] said she could not believe Person A was in this school as he had a personality disorder not autism. She was also shocked that Person A thought there would be no consequences to his actions. I told her that the school had considered if Person A should be at a different school, but ultimately decided he should stay, which led [the Registrant] to conclude the school did not care about Person A as they let him stay. The school is a residential school for autism and she said that he should be in a forensic unit. I said when he first arrived there was a question about whether the school was the appropriate fit for him because Person A has also been diagnosed with an Attachment Disorder. […] Therefore, Person A has dual needs, and could attend either a trauma specialist school or an autism specialist school. School A was an autism specialist school, meaning the staff there are trained to care for children with autism, but not trauma.’

30. Due to difficulties settling, Person A had undergone an extended assessment process at School A. The normal period of assessment was 12 weeks, but KB explained in her oral evidence that the period of assessment for Person A was 20 weeks due to the complexities of his case. KB explained that the assessment was carried out by a multi-disciplinary team headed by a Psychiatrist and including other disciplines.

31. At the end of that assessment, it had been decided that he should stay at the school due to his dual needs. The staff were already trained to care for his needs related to his diagnosis of autism, and it was decided that they would be trained in how to care for needs related to his Attachment Disorder. This was decided as staff at a trauma specialist school would have training in caring for children with a diagnosis of Attachment Disorder, but not autism, so they would have a similar issue.

32. KB explained to the Registrant that the school were planning to source this training for staff, but that it had not happened yet. The Registrant said that this proved the school did not care about Person A, or their staff, as they should have provided this training prior to his arrival.

33. School A has an incident reporting system for when a student harms themselves or others or something of concern occurs. The school policy states that staff must tell the designated safeguarding lead about the incident within one hour of the incident occurring and also complete a written report on the incident within 24 hours and submit it to the safeguarding head for them to investigate. KB explained that it is very important for incidents to be reported as the school uses the information to gather data and inform care and also for considerations of transparency.

34. In paragraph 2 of the Allegation, it is alleged that the Registrant had a conversation with KB on 14 January 2021 in which she asked KB not to report the incident of hair-pulling. The Panel’s findings in respect of that matter are set out below.

35. Following the incident on 14 January 2021, it is alleged that KB spoke to the Registrant on a call via Microsoft Teams on 20 January 2021. The discussions that are alleged to have taken place in this call have given rise to paragraphs 1 a. and 1 b. of the Allegation. The Panel’s findings on those matters are also set out below.

36. For convenience, the Panel sets out first its findings with respect to paragraph 2, as this incident is alleged to have taken place first in time.
Paragraph 2 – ‘In respect of the incident on 14 January 2021…, … , you asked [KB] not to report the incident and said that this was because they (other staff) clearly don’t care about Person A, or words to that effect.’

37. KB gave evidence that on 14 January 2021 the Registrant had asked her not to report the incident and told her that the school did not care about Person A, her or about KB. KB’s evidence was that as part of the same conversation she told the Registrant that the incident had to be reported and that she could do that on her behalf. She went on to say that the Registrant then said that would be ‘fine’. KB reported the incident.

38. As indicated above, the Registrant’s position was that the management of the school had made up totally untrue allegations against her. This was an allegation that was made by KB, the Registrant’s professional colleague at the time, and not by the management of the school. The allegation in paragraph 2 was first raised by KB six days later, in an important email which she sent to her former supervisor on 20 January 2021 and the Panel considered that KB had no reason to fabricate the allegation. In accepting KB’s evidence on this matter, the Panel took into account all the evidence given by KB and SLC in response to the matters set out in the Registrant’s written representations and the Panel’s conclusions as to the credibility and reliability of the evidence of KB and SLC on those matters as set out in more detail below.

39. Although the Registrant did accept KB’s offer to report the incident, the Panel has found the facts alleged in paragraph 2 to have been established, because the Registrant did ask KB initially not to report the incident. She also did say the further words to the effect alleged in paragraph 2.

40. Therefore, paragraph 2 of the Allegation has been found proved.
‘1. Between 14 January 2021 and 20 January 2021, you:
a. Did not act in Person A’s best interests and/or acted unprofessionally in that you said to Colleague X that you wanted to assess Person A for personality disorders but would need to do it without people (the school, staff or other clinicians) knowing, or words to this effect.’

50. The evidence of KB was that on 14 January 2021, the Registrant said to her following the incident of hair-pulling that she was considering carrying out a personality disorder assessment for Person A. KB’s evidence went on to state that she spoke to the Registrant on a call via Microsoft Teams on 20 January 2021. In her witness statement, KB stated at paragraphs 17 - 20 as follows: -
‘During the Teams call she told me that the school did not care about the children and because of this, we needed to be careful about how we carried out the personality disorder assessment as the school might try to stop us. [The Registrant] said we had to do the personality disorder assessment secretly. In order to do this, she asked me to keep two sets of clinical notes.
I was having weekly sessions with Person A. Every therapist at School A writes notes of their sessions and keeps them printed in a personal folder in the therapy room, in a locked cupboard. […] I showed [the Registrant] this cupboard on the 14 January 202[1] when she first visited the school. […] She asked me to keep writing the required notes, and to write down what “they wanted to hear”, they being the school management. Namely, that Person A is getting better and not having any challenging behaviours. [The Registrant] then asked me to keep a second set of notes that would include information she would use for the diagnosis of a personality disorder. Namely, a record of Person A’s challenging behaviour, comments about their perception of reality and tests of their short term memory. She asked me to keep these notes on my private drive on the computer, and to not print them out and keep them in the shared therapy folder for Person A.’

51. She went on to explain in paragraph 18 of her witness statement, -
‘The therapy team had a shared drive on our computers where we would keep digital copies of our notes if we wanted to (though this was not necessary), as well as reports and other relevant student information. Each staff member also has a personal drive on the computer where they can keep personal information (such as supervision notes, copies of payslips etc.). [The Registrant] asked me to keep this second set of notes on my personal drive on the computer and to not show them to anyone. [The Registrant] asked me to send her the secret second set of notes from my personal email to her personal email so that the school would have no chance of finding them. [The Registrant] asked me to tell no one about what she was asking me to do, and to keep her planned personality disorder assessment a secret.’

52. She continued at paragraphs 19 and 20, -
‘She also told me to put on both sets of notes that on the week she was not on campus (and was working with the school via zoom), that she attended my one to one sessions with Per[s]on A. [The Registrant] said that Person A would not be able to engage with her over zoom, so she would not actually attend. Observations and one to one sessions are a necessary part of any assessment. By lying about this, [the Registrant] could claim that she had observed Person A through zoom, and had reasonable grounds to diagnose them with a personality disorder. .. She told me that on the first day after lockdown she planned to go to the principal’s office and put an assessment saying that Person A had a personality disorder on his desk. She claimed that the school would be ‘blind sighted’ and would be forced to remove Person A from the school as she would catch them off guard.’

53. KB explained in her oral evidence how she came to report her concerns about that conversation to her previous supervisor on the same day. The Registrant was her superior as the senior practitioner and KB felt overwhelmed and was very troubled about what the Registrant had asked her to do. She sent a brief email to her previous supervisor, who phoned her straight back while she was still on the Teams call with the Registrant. KB ended the Teams call and spoke to her former supervisor about what the Registrant had asked KB to do. He expressed concern and told her to put what the Registrant had said in writing and to send it to him. She did that and the resulting email was in evidence before the Panel. The substance of that email is consistent with the evidence given by KB on the matters in paragraphs 1 a. (and b.) of the Allegation. In particular, the email stated:
“She said that since they have decided to keep him, we clearly can’t trust the school/staff or other clinicians. She wants to assess him for personality disorders but because we can’t trust people we need to do it without people knowing.”

54. The Panel accepted KB’s evidence for the following reasons. Her oral evidence on the matters raised in paragraph 1 a. and 1 b. was in substance consistent both with her witness statement and her contemporaneous email of 20 January 2021. Those allegations were made not by SLC or any other member of the management team, but by KB. Further, the Panel did not accept that the criticisms with respect to Patient A that the Registrant had made in her representations were justified in view of the responses given by both KB and SLC to the questions put to them on these matters. Each of those witnesses refuted convincingly the suggestions that were put to them based on the Registrants criticisms. The Panel was satisfied that there had been no collusion between the two witnesses and accepted the explanations that they gave, those explanations being often based on factual matters concerning the care given to Person A and other matters (see further paragraph 56 below). As a result, the Panel was all the more persuaded that the allegations against the Registrant had not been invented to protect either the management, the reputation of the school or both.

55. The Panel also bore in mind that in her wide-ranging challenge to the conduct of School A with respect to Person A, the Registrant has made a number of basic errors of fact concerning him. For example, he had been at the school for five months and not the eighteen months alleged by the Registrant. She alleged that she had carried out a ‘Wechsler WISC 4’ memory test on Person A. KB emphatically rejected that assertion, as she had been with the Registrant throughout the time when she had been with him on 14 January 2021, which was the only occasion that the Registrant saw him.

56. The Panel concluded that KB had no reason to fabricate the conversation and it was satisfied that the conversation took place on 20 January 2021 and that during the conversation the Registrant made the statements to KB that are alleged.

57. Therefore, the Panel concluded that as alleged in paragraph 1a., the Registrant did use words to the effect that she proposed to KB (i.e. ‘to Colleague X’) that she would assess Person A for personality disorders but would need to do it without people (meaning the school, staff or other clinicians) knowing about it.

58. Paragraph 1a. also alleges that by making such a proposal to KB, the Registrant ‘did not act in Person A’s best interests and/or acted unprofessionally’.

59. The Panel sets out first its findings on whether the proposed course of action was unprofessional. It accepted KB’s evidence as to the circumstances in which the assessment of a personality disorder should be carried out and the requirements for doing so. KB stated that in order to perform such an assessment, it would first have to be discussed with the therapy team within the school. Consent would then be required from the school and from Person A’s legal guardian (his aunt), as well as the child if possible.

60. KB also referred to the guidelines that applied at the time, published by the British Psychological Society and a copy of which was in evidence. Those guidelines made clear the importance of obtaining the necessary consents and as a registered Psychologist the Registrant should have followed those guidelines and would have been aware of them.

61. In those circumstances, the Panel accepted that by proposing to KB that she would assess Person A for a personality disorder the Registrant acted unprofessionally, by proposing to keep the assessment a secret from her colleagues rather than consulting them as to whether such an assessment should be carried out, which she ought to have done. The proposed course of action was also unprofessional because it was to be performed without the necessary consents.

62. As to whether or not the course of action proposed was contrary to the best interests of Person A, the Panel has accepted KB’s evidence that it was not. She explained that if the Principal were presented with such a report, he might not know that the method of carrying out the assessment was ‘unethical’ as he was not a Psychologist, and as KB pointed out, Psychologists were trusted members of the team. A personality disorder is a significant diagnosis and the Principal could have decided to transfer Person A from the school. This would have been damaging because Person A had been living at the school for five months at that point and had formed close bonds with the staff and other students.

63. Breaking those bonds unnecessarily would have an adverse effect on any child but would be especially damaging for a child with an Attachment Disorder as relationships are so important to them. The diagnosis could also have impacted on the type of care that Person A would receive, as he required specialist care for his autism and Attachment Disorder which might have been stopped. It would also have been a false diagnosis as it would not have been made following an appropriate assessment.

64. For those reasons, the Panel was satisfied that by proposing the course of action she did with respect to conducting an assessment of personality disorder, the Registrant did not act in the best interests of Person A.

65. Therefore, paragraph 1 a. has been found proved in its entirety.
‘1 b. inappropriately asked a junior colleague, Colleague X, to have a 1:1 meeting or meetings with Person A and produce two sets of notes for Person A, specifically you stated : I …..II…., III. …, IV ..V .. VI. … VII. ..’

66. The Panel has already explained the reasons why it has accepted KB’s evidence as to the conversation that took place between her and the Registrant on 20 January 2021. For those reasons, it has accepted her evidence that the Registrant asked her to produce two sets of notes in meetings with Person A and as to each of the further matters set out in subparagraphs I – VII of paragraph 1 b finds that the Registrant did say words to the effect set out in each of those sub-paragraphs I - VII.

67. As to sub-paragraph 1 b. IV of the Allegation (which includes the words ‘and/or’), the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant used words to the effect that KB should not show the clinical notes [i.e. the second set of notes] to anyone or tell anyone what she was doing.

68. Paragraph 1a alleges that the Registrant acted ‘inappropriately’. The Panel is satisfied that the request made by the Registrant that KB create two sets of notes was inappropriate. In summary, the Registrant was asking KB to connive in a covert assessment of Person A that involved concocting a set of notes that the Registrant knew would be untrue and the proposed assessment was unprofessional and not in his best interests for the reasons that have been given.

69. Therefore, the Panel was satisfied that paragraph 1 b. of the Allegation has been proved in its entirety.
‘3. Your actions as set out in particulars 1 a., 1 b. and/or 2 were dishonest.’

Dishonesty and Paragraph 1 a.

70. The Panel has found that the Registrant proposed to KB that she, the Registrant, would assess Person A for personality disorders without the school, staff or other clinicians knowing. The Registrant did so in circumstances where she required, but would not obtain, the necessary consents to the assessment in relation to Person A; and in circumstances where the school’s therapy team should have participated in any decision to conduct such an assessment but would not have done so. The proposal was the first stage of a covert plan on the part of the Registrant to blind-side the school by presenting its Principal with a report that Person A was suffering from a Personality Disorder, which might well result in his being removed from the school.

71. In those circumstances, the Registrant’s proposal to KB that the Registrant conduct that assessment was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

72. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that paragraph 3 of the Allegation has been proved with respect to paragraph 1 a. of the Allegation.

Dishonesty and Paragraph 1 b.

73. In order to implement the covert plan that has been described in the Panel’s findings with respect to dishonesty under paragraph 1 a., the Registrant asked KB, a junior colleague, to carry out a series of subterfuges which included the concoction of notes to show ‘what [the school] want to hear written’, the secret sharing of another set of notes and fabricating notes by recording that the Registrant had been present at the meetings with Person A when the Registrant knew that this would be untrue.

74. In those circumstances, each of the statements made by the Registrant as found proved in relation to paragraph 1 b. I – VII was a step proposed to implement the Registrant’s covert plan and each was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

75. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that paragraph 3 of the Allegation has been proved with respect to paragraph 1 b. of the Allegation.

Dishonesty and Paragraph 2

76. The Panel was not persuaded that the Registrant was dishonest with respect to the facts proved under paragraph 2. In view of KB’s evidence, the Registrant accepted her offer to report the hair-pulling incident. As a result, the Registrant was not proposing to cover up the incident.

77. Therefore, paragraph 3 has been found not proved with respect to paragraph 2.

Decision on Grounds

78. Mr Mansell submitted that the facts, if proved, established misconduct. They constituted serious departures from professional standards and the Registrant’s dishonest conduct had the potential to have had a serious adverse effect on Person A. Her conduct was disgraceful, would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners and fell far below the standards of registered Psychologists.

79. The Panel has directed itself in accordance with the advice from the Legal Assessor. In summary, the facts proved will amount to the statutory ground of misconduct if they establish conduct that fell short of what would have been proper in the circumstances, including the requirements of rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed and if, in context, the conduct was sufficiently serious: see Roylance v GMC [2000] 1 AC 311 and Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin).

80. The Panel sets out below its conclusions on misconduct with respect to paragraphs 1 a. 1 b. and 3.

81. The Panel did not consider that the facts proved under paragraph 2 reached the threshold of misconduct, because the Registrant accepted KB’s offer to report the hair-pulling incident.

82. The Panel refers to the following parts of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016 (‘the Standards of Ethics etc’) : -

‘1. Promote and protect the interests of service users ..
1.2 You must work in partnership with service users and carers, involving them, where appropriate, in decisions about the care, treatment or other services to be provided.
1.4 You must make sure that you have consent from service users or other appropriate authority before you provide care, treatment or other services.
2.5 You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience where appropriate, for the benefit of service users and carers.
2.6 You must share relevant information, where appropriate, with colleagues involved in the care, treatment or other services provided to a service user.
7.3 You must take appropriate action if you have concerns about the safety or well-being of children or vulnerable adults.

9. Be honest and trustworthy.

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

10.1 You must keep full, clear, and accurate records for everyone you care for, treat, or provide other services to.’

83. The Panel refers to the following parts of the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Practitioner Psychologists (2015): -

‘2. be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession.

2.1 understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times.

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

8. be able to communicate effectively.

9. be able to work appropriately with others.

9.1 be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with service users, other professionals, support staff and others.

10. be able to maintain records appropriately.
10.1 be able to keep accurate, comprehensive and comprehensible records in accordance with applicable legislation, protocols and guidelines.
10.2 recognise the need to manage records and all other information in accordance with applicable legislation, protocols and guidelines.’

84. The Panel concluded that the facts proved under paragraph 1 a and 1 b and 3 constituted failures both to comply with professional standards (particularly the Registrant’s dishonesty, as to paragraphs 9 and 9.1 of the Standards of Ethics, etc) and planned acts that would amount to yet further failures (such as obtaining consent in relation to the assessment as required by paragraph 1.4 of the Standards of Ethics, etc) on the part of the Registrant to comply with the professional standards set out above.

85. The Panel has concluded that the facts established under paragraphs 1 a., 1 b. and 3 (with respect to paragraph 1 a. and b.) show that the Registrant acted dishonestly by planning a covert clinical assessment of Person A which was both unprofessional and contrary to his best interests for the reasons that have been explained by the Panel. That course of action created a real risk of harm to Person A, potentially compromising his well-being and clinical care.

86. In all the circumstances, the Registrant’s conduct under paragraphs 1 a, 1 b. and 3 (so far as proved) would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners, was serious and constituted statutory misconduct.

87. Therefore, the Panel has found the statutory ground of misconduct to have been established.

Decision on Impairment

88. Mr Mansell referred to the ‘personal’ element and ‘public’ element set out and explained in the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment, (February 2022) and put forward a number of considerations based on the facts and circumstances of this case. He submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

89. The Panel also received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it has accepted. That advice included reference to the considerations set out in CHRE v NMC & Grant CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), at [65] - [76] and the correct approach to impairment in the context of dishonesty as explained in PSA v GMC & Hilton [2019] EWHC 1638 (Admin) at [85] - [86] and other case law.

90. The Panel’s conclusions on the issue of current impairment are as follows.

91. In considering whether or not the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, the Panel examined the ‘personal component’ first.

92. In assessing the personal component, key considerations are insight and remediation of the misconduct, if such have been demonstrated by the Registrant.

93. The Panel did bear in mind that the Registrant was at liberty to deny the allegations against her. However, it could find no insight into her misconduct in the evidence or in her written representations in which she blamed the school and its management for what she perceived to be shortcomings in the care given to Person A.

94. In considering remediation, the Panel asked itself whether the conduct that led to the Allegation was remediable and whether or not the Registrant has taken remedial action.

95. It is difficult to remediate dishonesty, though not impossible. Again, there was no evidence in the Registrant’s written representations or elsewhere that any aspect of the misconduct had either been remediated or that meaningful steps of remediation had been taken by the Registrant.

96. In all the circumstances, the Panel has concluded that in view of the Registrant’s lack of insight and failure to take any significant steps to remediate the misconduct, there exists a real risk of a repetition of the misconduct by the Registrant.

97. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reference to the personal component.

98. The Panel next considered the public component. The ‘public’ element requires proper consideration and due weight to be given to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold standards among members of the profession.

99. The Panel refers again to the seriousness of the misconduct. Members of the public would be very concerned that the Registrant had proposed to embark on a dishonest course of action that breached (as to dishonesty in particular) and would breach, basic standards of her profession (such as obtaining consent for the assessment) and risked the wellbeing and care of a vulnerable young service user, namely Person A, potentially damaging five months of good work that had been built up at the school in addressing his complex needs. That concern would be increased yet further in view of the Registrant’s total lack of insight into her misconduct and her failure to take any steps to remediate it.

100. In view of the circumstances as the Panel has found them to be, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the need to declare and uphold standards among members of the profession requires a finding of impairment. Therefore, the Panel has decided that the public component of impairment has been established.

101. For all these reasons, the Panel has decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Decision on Sanction

102. Mr Mansell informed the Panel that there was no other fitness to practice history with respect to the Registrant. He referred to the HCPC’s current Sanctions Policy (‘SP’) and to the purpose of sanctions and invited the Panel to consider each available sanction in ascending order of seriousness. He did not advocate any particular sanction.

103. The Panel has taken into account the relevant parts of the SP in reaching its decision, its earlier findings and conclusions and all the evidence so far as relevant at this stage. No further oral or documentary evidence was relied on. The Panel has also taken into account the submissions of and all facts and matters tending to favour the Registrant including those raised by her as having adversely affected her personal life which arose in the context of her application for an adjournment. The Panel has accepted the advice given by the Legal Assessor.

104. The reputation of the profession as a whole is more important than the interests of any individual practitioner; and, because orders made by professional disciplinary tribunals are not primarily punitive, considerations which would ordinarily weigh in mitigation of punishment have less effect on the exercise of this jurisdiction than on the ordinary run of sentences imposed in criminal cases: see Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 and the passage from the judgment of Sir Thomas Bingham, at 518 and 519.

105. The primary function of any sanction is to protect the public and the wider public interest. Sanctions are not intended to punish registrants, but instead to ensure that the public is protected. Inevitably, a sanction may be punitive in effect, but should not be imposed simply for that purpose. In deciding what, if any, sanction to impose, a panel is required to apply the principle of proportionality and in doing so to bear in mind the potential effect of a sanction on the registrant.

106. The Panel has borne in mind throughout its deliberations the following matters in particular. The protection of the public includes protection against any risks the Registrant might pose to those who use or need her services, the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and its regulation, the importance of upholding proper standards of conduct among members of the profession, and the role of sanctions in creating an appropriate deterrent effect on other registrants. The Panel has also taken into account the Registrant’s clear fitness to practise record and the potential effect of each sanction on her, while bearing in mind the purpose of sanctions and the public interests at stake.

107. In making an assessment of the gravity of the misconduct, the Panel considered the aggravating factors, with reference to relevant parts of the SP as set out below.

108. The Registrant’s covert plan to carry out an assessment for a personality disorder amounted to a breach of trust towards the vulnerable young service user, Person A, a vulnerable service user. Trust is a fundamental aspect of the relationship between a registrant and a service user (see paragraph 45, SP).

109. The Panel refers to the total lack of insight on the part of the Registrant and to its further finding that no meaningful steps of remediation of the misconduct have been taken by her (paragraphs 51-53, SP). There remains a risk of repetition of the misconduct, as the Panel has already concluded.

110. There was a potential for harm to be caused to a vulnerable service user if the Registrant’s plan had worked (paragraphs 54 and 55, SP). He could have been moved from the school, which could have been especially damaging to his wellbeing and potentially compromised his care. The report that the Registrant intended to provide to the school’s Principal would also have been based on a false diagnosis as it would not have been made following an appropriate assessment (see paragraph 63 above).

111. The Registrant acted dishonestly, in violation of a fundamental principle of registered practice. Her dishonesty could have had a significant impact on public safety as regards Person A, if KB had not alerted her colleagues to the Registrant’s plan.

112. The Panel has considered the seriousness of the dishonesty. The dishonesty concerned a secret plan that though proposed on a single day, involved a series of covert and dishonest steps that would result in a deception of the school when the proposed report (based on a false diagnosis) was seen and potentially acted upon by its Principal to the potential serious detriment of Person A. The Registrant compounded this by trying to involve a junior member of staff. In those circumstances, the Registrant’s dishonesty lay in the higher end of the scale of gravity (paragraphs 56-58, SP).

113. By choosing to put in place her dishonest plan, the Registrant deliberately chose not to work with colleagues by discussing with them her proposal to conduct an assessment of personality disorders on Person A, in circumstances where she should have done. Instead, she intended to keep her intended course of action hidden from them. This involved potentially serious failures to comply with another basic principle of practice as set out in paragraph 2.5 of the Standards of Ethics, etc: to work in partnership with colleagues.

114. The Panel considered that there were no factors in mitigation of the misconduct.

115. In making an overall assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant has been culpable of conduct that betrayed the trust of a vulnerable young service user, involved serious and calculated dishonesty, breached fundamental tenets of the profession, and placed that vulnerable service user at risk of serious harm.

116. In those circumstances, the Registrant’s misconduct represents a severe blemish to the standing and reputation of the profession.

117. The Panel considered the available outcomes in ascending order of seriousness.

118. To take no action would be a wholly inappropriate response to the impairment in view of the seriousness of the misconduct and the risk of repetition.

119. The next available sanction is a caution order. The SP states the following in relation to that sanction, -

‘101. A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:
• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight; and
• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

120. None of those elements is present in this case. The sanction of a caution would not protect the public from the risk of repetition of the misconduct. A caution would also not meet the seriousness of the misconduct. The Panel also took into account the contents of paragraph 102, SP (potential application of a caution if meaningful conditions of practice could not be imposed, etc) but concluded that a caution order would be inappropriate.

121. The circumstances in which conditions of practice are likely to be appropriate are set out in paragraph 106, SP. Conditions of practice would be inappropriate, given the nature of the misconduct and her dishonesty in particular. Further, in view of the Registrant’s lack of insight and remediation and her non-attendance at this hearing, the Panel was not satisfied that she would be likely to comply with any conditions even if they were appropriate. The Registrant poses a risk of harm by being in registered practice, and in view of the seriousness of the misconduct would not be an appropriate sanction in any event.

122. For those reasons, a conditions of practice order would not be an adequate response to the impairment.

123. The next available sanction is suspension, for a maximum period of 12 months. In considering whether or not a suspension order would be a sufficient and proportionate sanction, the Panel has also considered whether a striking off order would be a disproportionate sanction in the circumstances.

124. The Panel has taken into account the guidance given in paragraphs 121 and 122 of the SP (suspension) and the considerations in paragraphs 127 (removal from the profession), 128 (subject to exceptions, a registrant cannot apply for re-admission for five years), 130, 131 and 132 in particular. Paragraphs 121, 130 and 131 state, so far as material, -

121. 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. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

130. A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving (this list is not exhaustive):
• dishonesty ..;
……………..
• failure to work in partnership;
…………..

131. 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. In particular where the registrant:
• lacks insight;
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.’

125. As to paragraph 121, the case is serious for the reasons set out above and involves a serious breach of the Standards of Ethics, etc. The Registrant has shown no insight and there remains a risk of repetition of the misconduct. There is also no evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy her failings.

126. With respect to paragraph 130, the misconduct betrayed the trust of a vulnerable young service user, involved serious and calculated dishonesty on the higher end of the scale of gravity, and in making her covert and dishonest plan the Registrant deliberately hid what she was going to do from professional colleagues with whom she was required to work in partnership and placed the service user at risk of serious harm.

127. As to the bullet points in paragraph 131, there is a lack of insight on the part of the Registrant and she has not shown the Panel that she is willing to resolve the concerns.

128. The Panel has borne in mind the following further matters in considering whether the nature and gravity of the misconduct are such that any lesser sanction than striking off would be appropriate (paragraph 131) and whether a suspension order (of up to 12 months) would suffice.

129. A suspension order would provide public protection against the risk of repetition and mark the misconduct as serious. It would also give the Registrant the opportunity of reflecting on the Panel’s findings and persuading a review panel that a repetition of the misconduct would be unlikely. That might be an appropriate opportunity to grant to the Registrant, also bearing in mind that her misconduct took place on an isolated occasion, on a single day, and that she has an otherwise clear fitness to practice record and a striking off order could well have an even more harmful effect on her than a suspension order.

130. However, the Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute, acted with serious dishonesty, breaching and planning to breach fundamental tenets of the profession. She has betrayed the trust of a vulnerable service user by hatching a dishonest plan to fabricate an assessment for a personality disorder of the young person. Her plan had the very real potential of harming that vulnerable young service user. She has shown not a shred of insight, preferring to blame all those around her on the basis of allegations that involved basic errors of fact and accusing her former employers of inventing allegations, which the Panel has found to be in substance well founded. As a result, there remains a risk that the Registrant would repeat her misconduct and she has not shown the Panel that she would be willing to resolve the concerns.

131. In view of those considerations, the Panel has concluded that an order of suspension would not be a sufficient sanction, despite all the matters that weigh in favour of the Registrant and the significant impact that a striking off order would have on her. In view of the seriousness of the misconduct and the considerations in paragraph 129 of this decision in particular, a suspension order would neither maintain public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process nor be sufficient to uphold professional standards so as to provide a sufficient deterrent to other members of the profession.

132. Therefore, the Panel has decided that a striking off order would not be disproportionate in the circumstances and that a striking off order is the necessary and appropriate sanction in this case.

133. Accordingly, the Panel has decided that a striking off order should be imposed on the Registrant’s registration.

[This is decision has been redacted in order to provide a public version of the decision]

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Jade Nguyen from the Register.

An 18-month Interim Suspension Order has also been imposed.

Right of Appeal:

The Registrant may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales, against the Panel's decision and the order it has made.

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

History of Hearings for Miss Jade Nguyen