Ceri Goldring

Preliminary matters:

Proof of Service

1. The Panel was provided with confirmation that a Notice of Hearing had been sent by the HCPC on 19 May 2023, to the email address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC register. The Panel noted that the email delivery receipt confirms that the email was delivered at 09.50am.

2. The Panel was satisfied that Notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time, and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules.
Proceeding in Absence

3. Ms Angliss, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant under Rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules.

4. The Panel was advised by the Legal Assessor and accepted that advice. The Panel also took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant.”

5. The Panel determined that it was fair and reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant for the following interrelated reasons:

i. The Panel noted that following receipt of an email from the HCPC, dated 11 May 2023 in which the Registrant was advised of the provisional hearing date, she responded on the same date as follows:

“I will not be attending, nor will I have any representation, so the date is immaterial to me. However, thank you for letting me know when it will be. I look forward to hearing the outcome.”

The HCPC sent a further email to the Registrant on 11 June 2023. The HCPC acknowledged that the Registrant had stated that she would not be attending the hearing but confirmed that it was obliged to send her the link to the virtual hearing. The Registrant was invited to let the HCPC know if she had changed her mind with regard to attending. There was no response. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that it was fair and reasonable to conclude that the Registrant has voluntarily absented herself from these proceedings.

ii. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had signed a consensual disposal proforma on 11 November 2022 in which she confirmed that she wanted the HCPC to consider his request for Voluntary Removal from the register. The HCPC has agreed that Voluntary Removal would be an appropriate outcome. Therefore, the purpose of today’s hearing is to consider the signed agreement which is, in effect, a joint application made on behalf of both parties. Given the purpose of today’s proceedings, the Panel concluded that it would be in the Registrant’s interest to proceed with the hearing.

iii. The Registrant has not made an application to adjourn and there is no indication that even if the case were to be adjourned that she would be willing to attend on any future date. Therefore, an adjournment would serve no useful purpose.

iv. There is unlikely to be any disadvantage to the Registrant as she has made it clear in her communications with the HCPC that she wishes to be removed from the Register.

v. It is in the wider public interest that this hearing commences and proceeds expeditiously.

Background

6. The Registrant is a registered Occupational Therapist (OT).

7. The Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC on 18 October 2021 following her dismissal from employment as an OT at St Andrews Healthcare (“the Employer”). On 1 November 2021, the Employer also submitted a referral to the HCPC raising concerns regarding the Registrant’s fitness to practice.

8. The Registrant was employed as an OT at the Employer from 16 September 2019 until 7 October 2021. At the relevant time, the Registrant worked on a medium secure mental health ward for males over the age of 55 years old (“the Ward”). The Ward provided a safe and age-appropriate environment for the assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation of males with a primary diagnosis of mental illness with significant risk behaviours and complex presentations that required tailored care.

9. In July 2021, concerns were raised about the Registrant not maintaining appropriate professional boundaries with a service user on the Ward (“Service User A”), including frequently spending time in Service User A’s bedroom with the door either fully shut or ajar. A disciplinary investigation was commenced, during which concerns were also identified that the Registrant had taken Service User A’s laptop home with his permission but without the necessary internal authorisation from the Employer. The Employer’s investigation resulted in the referral to the HCPC. There is no evidence to support an allegation that the Registrant’s breach of boundaries with Service User A was sexually motivated.

10. The Registrant has not practised as an OT or worked in a role that requires her registration since her employment with the Employer ceased on 7 October 2021.

11. The concerns were subsequently considered by a Panel of the HCPC’s Investigating Committee (“the ICP”) on 14 July 2022 and referred to a substantive hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee.

12. The allegations referred by the ICP are as follows:

Allegations

As a registered Occupational Therapist (OT80166) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct. In that:

1. Between January and July 2021, you did not maintain professional boundaries with Service User A. In that:

a. On or around 5 January 2021, you took Service User A’s laptop home and downloaded software on it.

b. Between January and July 2021, you spent a disproportionate amount of time with Service User A, outside of any structured Occupational Therapy sessions.

2. The matters set out in Particular 1 above constitute misconduct.

3. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practice is impaired.

13. The Registrant has confirmed in correspondence that she does not intend to work in the profession and that she admits both the substance of the allegation and that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. The Registrant wishes to enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”) with the HCPC to remove herself from the HCPC’s Register. The Registrant has completed the Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma.

14. The Registrant signed the Voluntary Agreement on 13 June 2023, and it was signed on behalf of the HCPC on 29 June 2023.

HCPC Submissions

15. Ms Angliss, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the VRA is an appropriate means of resolving the case against the Registrant. She adopted the content of the HCPC’s skeleton argument during her oral submissions.

16. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant has made it clear that she has no intention of returning to practise as an OT. It was further submitted that she has demonstrated insight by admitting the substance of the allegation against her and that her fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct.

17. The HCPC invited the Panel to conclude that the VRA would ensure public protection and maintain public confidence in the profession. It was further submitted that voluntary removal would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

The Panel’s Approach

18. Although there were no written submissions from the Registrant, the Panel took into account the communication between the HCPC and the Registrant. The Panel also took into account the signed agreement itself.

19. The Panel noted that a VRA is an agreement between the HCPC and the Registrant. The principle terms of the agreement are that the HCPC will apply to withdraw the Allegation on the basis of a signed request by the Registrant to be removed from the Register, and a commitment that the Registrant will cease and desist from practising and will not attempt to re-join the register within a period of 5 years.

20. On the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel considered the criteria for a VRA. The Panel noted that legislation prevents a Registrant from seeking to resign from the Register whilst subject to an Allegation, a Conditions of Practice Order, or a Suspension Order. Furthermore, there is no express provision for consent agreements, such as disposal of a matter by Voluntary Removal, under The Health Professions Order 2001. However, the HCPTS has produced a Practice Note that the HCPC has approved as a means of allowing matters, where suitable, to be disposed of by consent. This Practice Note states that a Panel should not agree to resolve a case in this way unless it is satisfied that:

i. The appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and

ii. That doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

21. The Panel took into account the guidance contained within the HCPC Practice Note: Disposal of Cases By Consent which, in respect of Voluntary Removal states that:

“In cases where the HCPC is satisfied that it would be adequately protecting the public if the Registrant was permitted to resign from the Register it may enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement allowing the registrant to do so, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the registrant had been struck off.”

Decision

22. The Panel noted that the VRA mirrors the terms of a Striking Off Order, as it would prevent the Registrant from practising as an OT, using any title associated with that profession and would prevent her from making an application to be re-admitted to the register within 5 years.

23. The Panel went on to consider whether acceptance of the VRA would provide adequate public protection and whether it would be detrimental to the wider public interest.

24. The Panel noted that if it was not satisfied that removal would adequately protect the public interest, the proposed voluntary agreement would have to be rejected, which would mean that the case will proceed towards a substantive hearing before a differently constituted panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee.

25. The Panel considered the Registrant’s own interests. Based on the documentary evidence and the views expressed by the Registrant, the Panel was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise. The Panel noted the Registrant’s clear and settled intention not to return to practise as an OT. For example, in an email to the HCPC dated 28 September 2022 she stated:

“Although I don't like the idea of being struck off the register - it's more a dent in my pride than anything else. It doesn't affect my life in any way. It doesn't affect my new career. I don't really know what to suggest

- I don't currently have (nor am I seeking) any representation. So, whatever will be will be. Just let me know when I can cancel my direct debit.

I generally feel like this is just a waste of everyone's time. So the sooner it is done with, the better.”

26. The Panel noted that the Registrant has been provided with detailed information about the consent process and the effect of voluntary removal from the Register, should the application be granted. The Registrant has also had time to review this information and query its implications with the HCPC. In these circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant is fully aware of the consequences of voluntary removal and has willingly entered into the agreement with the HCPC.

27. In considering whether removal of the Registrant’s name from the Register is in the interests of the public, the Panel noted that her misconduct had the potential to cause harm to Service User A who was particularly vulnerable as he was an inpatient on a medium secure mental health ward. Maintaining appropriate professional boundaries is fundamental to safe and effective practice as an OT. For a significant period, the Registrant was unable or unwilling to maintain appropriate boundaries with Service User A. The shortcomings in the Registrant’s behaviour inevitably raised service user safety concerns due to the potential to cause significant harm to and undermine public trust and confidence in the profession.

28. Furthermore, there is no countervailing public interest in refusing the request for VRA. Therefore, disposing of this case by way of consent would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. In reaching this conclusion the Panel noted that the Registrant has demonstrated insight into her misconduct. In particular, she has admitted the allegations and has accepted that her fitness to practise is impaired.

29. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that approval of the proposed VRA is both proportionate and appropriate. The Panel also determined that there is a legitimate public interest in avoiding a substantive hearing and
any subsequent review hearings, in circumstances where the Registrant has expressed a clear desire to be removed from the Register.

30. Therefore, the Panel consented to the VRA and was satisfied that the professional disciplinary proceedings should be withdrawn.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Ms Ceri Goldring from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Ceri Goldring