Timothy Talbot-Johnstone

Preliminary Matters:

Service

1.The Registrant was present and took no issue on the matter of service.
Amendment of the Allegation

2. At the start of the hearing the HCPC made an application to amend the Allegation. The details of the proposed amendments were set out in the letter sent to the Registrant on the 24 January 2023 and in the Case Summary within the HCPC bundle of documentation. The Registrant had not raised any objections to those amendments prior to the hearing and indicated his acceptance of these at the hearing.

3. The proposed amendments:

a) Change ‘the’ to ‘your’ at the end of the stem of 1(a).

b) The removal of 1(a)(iii), within 1(a), as the matter alleged had taken place during the Registrant’s employment by North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’). This being the case, it was not appropriate to be included within 1(a), which dealt with the Registrant’s application for employment with the Trust.

c) The issue contained within the deleted 1(a)(iii) was then encapsulated within a new Particular 2, and the numbering of the subsequent particulars were amended accordingly.

4. The HCPC stated that in relation to the amendments they were required for accuracy and clarity. The expanded wording of the fresh number 2, made it absolutely clear what was alleged and related to a later recruitment process for an alternative position within the Trust.

5. The Panel noted the wording of the fresh Particular 2 as proposed and noted that it could be improved by some further wording, which did not in any way alter its intent but made it easier to read. This was:

⦁ By the insertion of ‘by the’ before reference to the ‘North West Ambulance Service’;

⦁ Insertion of ‘an’ and ‘form’ either side of ‘application’;

⦁ Changing of ‘the’ to ‘your’ in the final line before ‘Practice’.

6. The parties did not raise any objection to the change of wording within Particular 2, as proposed by the Panel.

7. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and after careful consideration decided that it would agree to the HCPC application to amend. The Panel concluded that the amendments did not change the substance of the application, nor did they cause the Registrant any prejudice. Further, these amendments aided clarity of what was alleged. Those amendments and those made by the Panel are reflected in the wording of the Allegation set out above.

Hearing in Private

8. At the opening of the hearing the HCPC confirmed that it would not be raising any issues relating to personal or private matters and so, from the HCPC perspective, there would not be a need to go into private. The HCPC however alerted the Panel to the possibility that the Registrant may be raising private issues which it might be appropriate to consider in private. If the Registrant did so choose to present such information then an application to go into private would be made at that time.

Background:

9. The Registrant was employed by the Trust as a Clinical Practice Trainer (‘CPT’) within the Paramedic Emergency Services (PES) Division of the Trust between 8 May 2018 and 29 May 2019.

10. In 2018, it was discovered by JB-O, Senior Education Manger, that the Registrant had previously been employed and dismissed by Mersey Regional Ambulance Service (‘MRAS’) in 2002. The Registrant had not declared this when applying for the CPT role, even though there had been numerous opportunities to do so, specifically in the application form, within the Registrant’s CV, and at interview. An investigation was conducted into this issue by JB-O and during an interview with the Registrant, he admitted to working for, and leaving MRAS.

11. During the investigation conducted by JB-O, the Registrant applied for the Practice Education Facilitator (‘PEF’) role, within the PES at the Trust. In the PEF application form, the Registrant omitted his employment with MRAS. His application was withdrawn by JB-O when it was identified that this application form did not make reference to the Registrant’s former employment with MRAS.

12. Upon conclusion of the internal investigation, a disciplinary hearing was held on 29 May 2019, when the Registrant was dismissed.

13. The Registrations Department of the HCPC has confirmed that in 2017 the Registrant did not declare his dismissal from MRAS in 2002.

14. On the 13 November 2019 the Registrations Department confirmed that the Registrant mentioned his dismissal from the Trust within his re-registration letter. It is alleged by the HCPC that this notification of dismissal had not been done in a timely manner.

15. The HCPC alleges that those omissions, made by the Registrant to the Trust, and the HCPC, were dishonest.

Evidence

16. The Panel received live evidence from one HCPC witness (JB-O) who had been involved with the Registrant’s interview for the CPT post and had undertaken the investigation and prepared the Management side case for the disciplinary hearing. JB-O had produced a sworn statement attached to which was the documentation on which the HCPC relied.

17. The Panel also had a sworn statement from a member of the HCPC’s Registrations Department. This statement produced the documentation and communications received by the HCPC’s Registrations Department from the Registrant on his initial registration on 18 May 2017, and his renewal on 20 August 2019.

18. The Registrant chose to give evidence. The Panel had not been provided with any documentary evidence from the Registrant prior to the hearing. However, during his live evidence the Registrant referred to, and then produced, a copy of a letter from the Criminal Records Board (‘CRB’) dated 8 December 2002. It became apparent that the CRB document that had been shared with the Panel during the hearing on day one had in fact been sent to the HCPC by the Registrant at some point during the HCPC investigatory process. This letter had also been referred to in a letter from the Registrant when submitting his renewal application to the Registration’s Department in 2019. Within this letter from the CRB it is stated:

[redacted]

Decision on Facts

19. The Panel noted the Registrant made admissions at the start of the hearing to the first three Particulars of the Allegation. There was then a further admission to Particular four within his live testimony. The Panel appreciated however that notwithstanding those admissions, it was, at this factual stage of the proceedings, for the HCPC to prove the facts to the requisite standard of balance of probabilities.

20. The Panel received the advice of the Legal Assessor, which contained detailed guidance on the approach to be adopted when considering the issue of dishonesty. The Panel was referred by her to the HCPTS Practice Note on Determining a Registrant’s State of mind in relation to this issue of dishonesty.

Particular 1

21. The Panel had the benefit of JB-O’s live testimony which was consistent with her sworn statement. The documentation which supported her evidence were the PES CPT Application Form and the Registrant’s CV as produced for that role of CPT. The Panel also had a copy of the proforma interview form which was completed at the time of interview on 20 March 2018 by JB-O. This form sets out a standard format for questions and scoring of answers on which the basis of offering employment is founded.

22. The Registrant’s role for the Trust included providing training courses within Cheshire. The Registrant was also, according to JB-O, ‘responsible for the maintenance of records; ensuring that training information was accurately and appropriately recorded and forwarded in a timely manner’.

23. The details of his former employment with MRAS had come to light when a paramedic had attended a mandatory training course held in Cheshire which had been led by the Registrant. The paramedic identified the Registrant some years previously having been on the same ‘basic training’ course as him in Cheshire and had spoken to the Registrant about this. The paramedic had told JB-O that he recalled that the Registrant had left MRAS quickly after his training and his departure had been ‘under a cloud’.

24. JB-O investigated and identified the date when this paramedic had undertaken his basic training course in 2002. Through contact with the trainer of that course and a review of the register of those who were in attendance she identified a trainee called Timothy Johnstone.

25. JB-O confirmed that in 2006, MRAS had merged with other regional services into the newly formed Trust. At that time the Trust had adopted one database but had decided to keep previous information from the former regional services. The consolidated database for HR was called PEARL and from a search for Timothy Johnstone and Timothy Talbot Johnstone it was established that they were the same person.

26. JB-O stated that the file relating to the Registrant had been extensive and unhelpfully did not have an index meaning that she had to go through all documentation even though she only sought to confirm that the Registrant had been previously employed and had been dismissed.

27. As part of that review of the file, JB-O identified that there had been some irregularity with the Registrant’s Driving Licence in 2002. She was not able to confirm the detail of those irregularities with the Driving Licence as it had not been the focus of her investigation, but she had a clear recollection that this was the issue that had led to the Registrant’s termination of employment.

28. JB-O had written to the Registrant on 7 January 2019 informing him that there would be an investigatory interview on 23 January 2019. The Panel has a copy of that letter and a copy of the notes of the meeting on 23 January 2019. The accuracy of those meeting notes was confirmed by the Registrant on the 8 February 2019.

29. At that meeting on the 23 January 2019 the Registrant is recorded as offering a variety of reasons for not providing information on his former employment with MRAS. He had stated that he had not deliberately omitted his employment with MRAS, as at the time he was working at MRAS he had been going through some personal trauma and that it was a particularly stressful period of his life. He also stated that he got his dates mixed up and that his CV had been developed and added to over the years.

30. JB-O emphasised to the Panel that it is important to disclose this type of information, ‘as the Trust relied heavily upon the honesty and integrity of those it was employing’ In her view, ‘disclosure would have given the Trust the ability to consider the individual circumstances’.

Particular 1(a)

In or around March 2018, on your application form to North West Ambulance Service you did not declare your previous employment in 2002 with the former Mersey Regional Ambulance Service [MRAS], and:

(a) You did not provide details of the employment within your:

i. PES Clinical Practise Trainer Application Form
ii. Curriculum Vitae
iii. Interview

1(a)(i) – proven

31. The CPT Application form makes no reference to the Registrant’s time of employment with MRAS (7 July to 11 November 2002). For that period the Registrant is recorded on that online NHS Application Form as working for the Deanery NHS. In evidence to this Panel the Registrant had maintained that he was working for this educational organisation at the same time as MRAS. Upon questioning by the Panel, the Registrant confirmed that during this period he was in fact working under a full-time contract for MRAS and that the position with the Deanery had been taken as an additional zero-hours teaching position.

32. The Panel find, on the evidence before it, that this limb of the Allegation is proven.

1(a)(ii) - proven

33. JB-O referred the Panel to the Registrant’s CV, which showed that for the period from July 2002 to March 2005 the Registrant had recorded that he was working for the Deanery NHS. The period when he was working for MRAS (July to November 2002) is not mentioned.

34. The Panel therefore find this limb proven.

Particular 1(a)(iii) – not proven

35. When responding to the allegation in relation to 1(a)(iii), ‘did not provide details’ of his employment with MRAS, the Registrant qualified his admission of this limb of the Particular, with the statement that ‘the topic did not come up at interview’.

36. JB-O stated that the Trust had a standard format for questions asked during interview. She told the Panel that the Registrant at no point referred to working for MRAS, nor to the fact that he was dismissed.

37. The Panel noted that within the standard framework of questions there was a question relating to dismissal (allegation 1(b) below). However, there was no specific question relating to any previous employment and there was, having received details online and through the CV no necessity for any questioning. It follows therefore that there was no specific question and no requirement in the interview when there was an expectation of the Registrant in making a disclosure of previously unrecorded employment.

38. In the Panel’s view, the interpretation that is being placed by HCPC upon the question relating to dismissal within the interview is not supportable and would be a duplication of the mischief alleged.

39. The Panel therefore makes no finding on this limb of the allegation.

Particular 1(b)

You did not declare that you had been dismissed from employment.

40. The Panel noted the question within the section of the interview form dealing with ‘Terms and conditions and additional information’. At number 8 there is the question, ‘Have you ever been dismissed from employment?’ The response given by the Registrant to that question is recorded as ‘No’. JB-O told the Panel that this was the point at which the Registrant’s employment with MRAS and the circumstances surrounding his dismissal could have been revealed and explored.

41. The Panel accepts this evidence as proof and makes a finding of proven.

Particular 2 - proven

Whilst employed by the North West Ambulance Service, on your application for a role at the North West Ambulance Service you did not declare your previous employment in 2002 within the former Mersey Regional Ambulance Service with that Practice Education Facilitator application form.

42. During the hearing the Panel requested missing pages from the application form. These had been omitted from the HCPC hearing bundle as shown on the portal. This was required by the Panel to make absolutely sure that there was no reference within the missing pages including the declaration of truth and accuracy that may have been crucial to its considerations. Those missing pages included the declaration that the Registrant had completed before submitting his application.

43. At some point whilst the investigation was in progress, and following the referral to JB-O by the fellow paramedic, the Registrant made an application for the position of PEF.

44. The Panel had before it a copy of the application form, which had been completed on the NHS Jobs portal. The Registrant had used his previous application form as the starting point for his application for this post and the basic information had been previously populated and saved. It was evident from a comparison of the two job applications before the Panel that the Registrant had made some amendments. The Registrant had revised his current experience and updated his referees.

45. JB-O expressed the view that that there had been several changes to the form but the Registrant had not chosen to change his previous employment record to include his employment with MRAS. As this application was submitted after the meeting with the paramedic at the Cheshire training course he would have been reminded of that employment.

46. The Panel accepted this documentary and testimonial evidence and made a finding of proven for this limb.

Particular 3 - proven

On 18 May 2017, when you signed and submitted your application form to join the Health and Care Professions Council’s Register, you did not tick the box “yes” in response to the question: “Have you been disciplined by ... your employer?”

47. The Panel had before it a copy of the HCPC’s Registration Application Form returned to the HCPC by the Registrant in May 2017. There is no tick against the box relating to the issue of previous disciplinary matters.

48. The Panel also had a copy of the letter, of 11 November 2002, from MRAS to the Registrant, in which it is stated in two paragraphs that:

‘….From the outset, it was explained to you that via a Criminal Records Bureau disclosure and DVLA licence check, the Trust had been alerted to a series of discrepancies with your driving records, such that had information about· previous endorsements and convictions been known about beforehand, it may have invalidated your application for employment with the Trust….’

‘…..Accordingly, as a probationer employee, the decision was taken to terminate your employment with effect from Thursday 7 November 2002. In accordance with the Employment Rights Act 1996, you are entitled to one weeks’ notice. In view of the prevailing circumstances, you will receive one week's pay in lieu of this notice entitlement.

49. In evidence the Registrant had stated that he had forgotten about a six-week training course, being a reference to his basic training course. After questioning however, the Registrant acknowledged that he had been with MRAS for just over four months.

50. The Registrant made further comments that the course was not considered by him as employment. However, from the quotes from the letter sent on 11 November 2002, it is clear to the Panel that this was a term of employment. Further, the letter indicated] that the instant dismissal, for failure to comply with the employment requirements, was part of a disciplinary process.

51. Based on this documentary evidence and the Registrant’s admission the Panel find that this allegation is proven.

Particular 4 – Proven

You did not declare to the HCPC in a timely manner that on or around 29 May 2019 you were dismissed from North West Ambulance Service Trust.

52. The Panel had a copy of the Renewal Application Form which had been submitted on 20 August 2019 by post by the Registrant. The Renewal Application Form contained a tick box that the Registrant was not able to tick without explanation, and so had sent a paper copy with a covering letter. The Panel noted that this submission for renewal had been made on the last day for renewal.

53. The Panel had before it a copy of the Referral to the HCPC from the Trust on 18 July 2019. There was no evidence of a self-referral from the Registrant prior to this referral. Nor was there prior mention of the Registrant having made a self-referral until he referred to it within the renewal application form covering letter in which he states:

I should stress that this outcome [dismissal from the Trust] is subject to an appeal process and despite self-referral to the HCPC Professional Standards, I am not now, nor previously at any point had any restriction or caveats on my practice.

54. In evidence the Registrant had told the Panel initially that he had self-referred. He then submitted that he had made a self-referral within this covering letter and finally advanced the position that there was no need for him to make a self-referral since the Trust had already made a referral.

55. The HCPC position was that there had not been a declaration in a timely manner and that there had been sufficient time for the Registrant to make a referral between 29 May 2019 and 20 August 2019. The Trust had made a referral on the 18 July 2019.

56. In questioning the Registrant eventually accepted that he had not in fact made a declaration and that a delay of nearly three months would not be considered timely.

57. The Panel therefore finds this allegation proven on the documentary evidence and the Registrant’s acceptance and admission of the facts during his evidence.

Particular 5

Your conduct in relation to allegations 1-4 was dishonest

58. The Panel considered each limb and particular in isolation as well as considered the totality of the evidence relating to the alleged dishonest behaviour. The Panel applied the principles encapsulated within the judgment of Ivey v Genting Casinos as directed by the Legal Assessor.

59. The Panel discounted from its consideration the limb 1(a)(iii) on which this Panel has made no factual finding.

Particular 1

60. The Panel noted the various and numerous reasons given by the Registrant by way of explanation for his failure to bring this matter to the attention of the Trust at the time of his application and appointment. These included some health-based conditions for which he did not provide the Panel with any medical supporting information. The Registrant had advanced the premise he had made a mistake, an oversight, as it had happened so long ago, some sixteen years previous. He also advanced the position that it had been such a traumatic episode in his life that he had put it behind him and intentionally forgotten the incident. He further advanced the position that there was no benefit to him of not disclosing this information as there was no career advancement from seeking and taking this position as CPT for PES. The Registrant also stated that the basis for his termination of training in 2002 should not have happened as it was founded on a mistake, and he was now seeking historic redress and so it was in some way right that it was not included. The Panel found the Registrant’s various explanations and reasoning for his actions inconsistent and difficult to accept.

1(a)(i)

61. The Panel considered that the Registrant was aware at the time of completing the online application form that he was required to include all employment and relevant circumstances relating to that employment. The Registrant had accounted for his employment from 1991 to 2018 in that online form. The Registrant had taken the opportunity of giving an explanation of the ‘gap’ in his employment between 1995 and 2001 when he was travelling and apparently not in any substantive employment.

62. There was however no mention of his first attempt to train to become an Emergency Medical Technician in 2002, something that had direct relevance to his position within his profession and his application for this post. The fact that this period had been accounted for by reference to a position elsewhere was a way of filling a further gap in his CV.

63. The Panel considered that the Registrant was aware that this was what he was intending to do, to cover up a gap, and to mislead. The Panel decided that this behaviour would be considered by the public as dishonest. The Panel therefore makes a finding of dishonesty.

1(a)(ii)

64. The Panel noted that in his interview with JB-O on 23 January 2018 he had stated that his CV had ‘developed and been added to over time’. This was intended to suggest that overtime it had become less accurate. However, any revision of a document could also be a spur to revision and refinement.

65. The same reasoning applies to this limb, the production of a CV, that replicates the information within the online application. This document had been drafted and produced with this omission in his career history with a view to mislead a reader. Members of the public would similarly agree that this document which is fashioned to present a candidate in the best possible light should however still be complete, accurate and truthful.

66. The Panel accordingly makes a finding of dishonesty.

Particular 2

67. This online form was based upon the information previously supplied. However, since the time of making the application to the Trust (for the post of CPT within PES), the Registrant had been alerted to his past employment in Cheshire at Northwich Station. First, according to him, because he had recall when he had been required to go back to the geographical area where he was based in 2002 to provide training. Secondly by a meeting with a former fellow trainee at a mandatory training session he was leading at Northwich. The Registrant, should he have either genuinely forgotten, or intentionally put this behind him had, at the time he submitted the online form, been reminded of his former employment. This being the case, on this occasion the omission to amend his historic employment history could not have been an oversight as suggested by the Registrant.

68. The online form had been amended by the Registrant but not to include the information about his former employment with MRAS. The Registrant made no amendment to his historic employment as it remained in his best interests not to disclose his past. This was, in the Panel’s view, a deliberate omission by the Registrant and a further attempt to conceal his past from his present employer. The public would, in the Panel’s view, come to the same conclusion that this was dishonest behaviour. The Panel therefore makes a finding of dishonesty.

Particular 3

69. The Panel noted that within his evidence the Registrant had drawn attention to his lackadaisical approach to paperwork. The Registrant had also suggested variously that the issues arising from the CRB discloser was a mistake. As previously noted, he considered that his termination of employment in 2002 was not a disciplinary issue. As set out in the Panel’s reasoning for finding this allegation proven, the wording of the letter of 11 November 2002 made it clear that the Registrant’s termination of employment was part of an investigatory and disciplinary process.

70. The Panel noted that this application for Registration with the HCPC was a significant and important matter and came with a duty of candour. The Panel considered that the Registrant at that time must have been aware of the necessity of including all facts whether considered by him to be relevant or not. The failure to mention this disciplinary matter was in the Registrant’s best interests as he required the registration to continue with his chosen avenue of work within resuscitation. The Panel considers that the Registrant must have given consideration to this issue and been aware that non-disclosure was the better option for attaining registration. The Panel considers that the Registrant did this intentionally and that in doing so he was being dishonest. A member of the public would also come to this conclusion and so the Panel makes a finding of dishonesty.

Particular 4

71. The application to re-register with the HCPC had been made at the very last possible moment. In the Panel’s view the evidence on this allegation in a simplistic way was just that the Registrant had been tardy. However, due to the content of his covering letter and the evidence he gave to this Panel, this matter proved the most concerning for the Panel. Within what is an apparent disclosure of his dismissal there were in the covering letter many attempts by the Registrant to minimise what had happened historically and recently, so as to distance himself from blame. Further, he provided misleading information to his regulator. There had been no self-referral previously or in fact at any time however the presentation of the situation by the Registrant is that there had been.

72. The Panel cannot accept that in just under three months the Registrant had not been able to make a self-referral. Delay in doing so was to his advantage. Presenting his renewal within the context that he had already made this referral was also to his advantage. The Panel considers that the Registrant knew what he was doing in delaying his application and in not making any self-referral. The Panel considers that members of the public would consider the Registrant’s actions to be dishonest and so this Panel makes a finding of dishonesty accordingly.

Adjournment application by the Registrant made at the start of day four

73. At 16.15 hours on day three of the hearing, the Panel was in a position to hand down its decision on facts and attempted to resume the hearing. At that point, the Panel’s Hearings Officer was unable to make contact with the Registrant. The Panel was aware that on day one of the hearing the Registrant had encountered IT issues and attended via a visual phone conference, and on day two had been in attendance via a mobile call only. The Hearings Officer therefore continued her attempts to make contact with the Registrant. Those efforts proved fruitless and at 17.30 hours the Panel adjourned till 9.30 on day four.

74. The Hearings Officer periodically monitored her emails to see if there had been a response from the Registrant to the various emails that she had sent earlier that day. On day four, 25 May 2023, the Registrant made contact with the Panel, by way of email sent to the Hearings Officer at 08:13:37, which stated:

‘I’m sorry I took some [sic] with a migraine yesterday afternoon, subsequently I have been up all night with this. I will be therefore unavailable for the day.

Please send my respectful apologies to the panel. I will check in again later today if that’s acceptable.’

75. The Panel resumed the hearing at approximately 09.39 hours and put on record its receipt of this communication from the Registrant. The Panel, after consultation with the Legal Assessor and the Presenting Officer, decided that it would hand down the decision on facts and put on record its findings which were that all particulars save 1(a)(iii) had been found proven. This decision on findings of fact included a finding of dishonesty at Particular 5 on all four other particulars.

76. After further consultation the Panel agreed, that when the Hearings Officer sent the decision to the Registrant, the Legal Assessor would, in her capacity of providing guidance to an unrepresented party, write to the Registrant with some information relating to the next stage of the proceedings. That note, identifying the two-stage process of fitness to practise, was seen and approved by the Panel before being sent by the Hearings Officer. That note indicated that the Panel hoped to hear from, or see in person, the Registrant at noon.

77. When the hearing resumed at 12pm the Panel had received a response from the Registrant which was put on record. The text of that email sent by Registrant to the Hearings Officer at 11:22:09 on 25 May 2023, stated:

“I’m unable to currently to unwell [sic] to fully participate today. Please however understand that I am fully committed to every part of this hearing. In order for me to read and digest the finding I would ask that we adjourn until tomorrow morning.”

This email had been distributed to the Panel and sent to the HCPC’s Presenting Officer before resumption of the hearing.

78. The Panel invited the Presenting Officer’s views on this request for an adjournment until the start of day five, noting that this was day four of a five day hearing, meaning that the matter was now unlikely to conclude in that time. The Presenting Officer raised no objections to the Registrant’s application for an adjournment in view of the reasons given by the Registrant.

79. The Panel sought advice on this application for an adjournment and was directed to the guidance within the Practice Note relating to Adjournments and Postponements. That Practice Note informed the Panel of the matters it should take into account when considering an adjournment application. It was required to balance the interests of the public in a timely conclusion to this matter against those of the Registrant and his right to participate in the hearing.

80. The Panel concluded that it would adjourn until 09.30 on Friday 26 May 2023. Its reasons were:

⦁ there had not been a previous request for an adjournment;
⦁ the Registrant has stated that he is indisposed;
⦁ there was evidence that the Registrant wished to remain engaged with the hearing process;
⦁ whilst there was a public interest in this matter proceeding without delay, fairness required an adjournment in these circumstances, and it was therefore reasonable and proportionate to adjourn.

Application of the ‘slip’ rule

81. At the start of day five of the hearing, the Panel made an amendment to its decision on finding of facts, at the request of the Registrant.

82. The Registrant, having received a copy of the decision by email the day before, raised a small point about the accuracy of the statement that he had not provided the HCPC with any documentation in advance of the hearing. The CRB document that had been shared with the Panel during the hearing on day one had in fact been sent to the HCPC by the Registrant at some point during the HCPC investigatory process. This being the case, the statement that the Registrant had not produced any supporting documentation was inaccurate.

83. The Panel heard from the Legal Assessor that there was the opportunity for the Panel to amend this inaccuracy under the ‘slip rule’. The HCPC was invited to make observations on the proposal to amend that statement and the Presenting Officer raised no objection. The relevant sentence within paragraph 18 was therefore amended accordingly with the addition in bold:

The Registrant chose to give evidence. The Panel had not been provided with any documentary evidence from the Registrant prior to the hearing. However, during his live evidence the Registrant referred to, and then produced, a copy of a letter from the Criminal Records Board (‘CRB’) dated 8 December 2002. It became apparent that the CRB document that had been shared with the Panel during the hearing on day one had in fact been sent to the HCPC by the Registrant at some point during the HCPC investigatory process. This letter had also been referred to in a letter from the Registrant when submitting his renewal application to the Registration’s Department in 2019. Within this letter from the CRB it is stated…

84. This issue of the Registrant having supplied documentation to the HCPC at an earlier stage in the proceedings was pursued by the Panel. The Registrant confirmed that he had supplied some references at an earlier stage. Those references were located and presented to the Panel.

Further evidence from the Registrant and HCPC submissions on misconduct and impairment

Registrant’s further evidence

85. The Registrant gave further evidence and stated that the position that he had presented on day one of the hearing, related to his former behaviour and was a statement of his position, belief, and understanding of his conduct, at that time, in 2018. He did not in his heart believe at that time, that he was being dishonest. With hindsight he understood how it appeared. He would not repeat those actions were he to be ‘given his time again’. He appreciated now that there was the perception that he had been dishonest, and he accepted the Panel’s decisions in relation to that issue of dishonesty. He understood that his behaviour would be of concern to the public and that his conduct fell far short of what is expected of a paramedic.

86. The Registrant stated that he was sorry for his behaviour, that he regretted his actions, and would not make the same mistake again in the future. He apologised and stated that he had reflected fully on his behaviour. He told the Panel that he had used his own professionally embarrassing situation in training as an example to others of what not to do. He stated that his knowledge of the HCPC regulatory process was not only from his own experience but through delivering the portion of the paramedic training course dealing with ethics. He now fully understood and appreciated the burden, as well as the benefits, of being a member of his profession.

87. The Registrant told the Panel that he had worked for the Liverpool Women’s Hospital (the Hospital) following his departure from the Trust. He told the Panel that when he had been dismissed by the Trust, he had informed the Hospital immediately. He told the Panel that he had spoken to a Director at the Hospital informing them of his dismissal and he had given details of the underlying reasons why he had been dismissed. The Registrant had left the Hospital before the end of his contract for a variety of reasons which revolved around use of the IT system.

88. During the COVID-19 pandemic the Registrant had undertaken some work for the NHS Retrieval Service alongside his farming of sheep and pigs.

89. The Registrant had then taken up a trainer position with ORMS, an organisation that he had a previous relationship with. At this time the Registrant had undertaken some sessional work which took up the majority of 2021. The Registrant confirmed that he had not used his paramedic registration since 2021, and whilst he wished to retain his registration, he had no desire to return to front line paramedic work. He enjoyed the teaching side of his career and at present was fully engaged in his farming. He stated that he had not been seeking a position as a paramedic and had not been seeking work generally. The Registrant believed that he did not need his registration for teaching posts.

90. The Registrant had, after reviewing the HCPC website, identified suitable courses and undertaken some Continuing Professional Development. These courses were more educational based than clinical. The Registrant mentioned specialist resuscitation instructor courses and an Oil and Gas air crash course. The Registrant did not place any course completion certificates before the Panel.

91. The Registrant confirmed that the CV sent to the Hospital had not featured his previous employment with MRAS. The Registrant stated that the position with MRAS had been subsequently included in his CV. The Registrant stated that his CV is currently not up to date and therefore does not feature his most recent experience and CPD courses.

92. After the HCPC had made is submissions the Registrant chose not to say anything further considering that his additional evidence related everything he wished to say at this point.

HCPC submissions

93. The HCPC submitted that the matters found proven are serious, involving multiple examples of dishonesty and behaviour intended to mislead.

94. The Panel was directed to the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, specifically section 9 entitled ‘Be honest and trustworthy’. Within that section the relevant standards are:

Personal and professional behaviour

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

9.2 You must be honest about your experience, qualifications and skills.

Important information about your conduct and competence

9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if:

– you have had any restriction placed on your practice, or been suspended or dismissed by an employer, because of concerns about your conduct or competence.

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.

95. In terms of impairment the HCPC emphasised that there was considerable public interest in the Panel making a finding of misconduct. It was advanced that the public would be rightly appalled at the number of occasions on which the Registrant had misled others as to the true nature of the situation.

96. In terms of the personal component, it was advanced that it was very difficult to prove that the dishonesty would not be repeated. The Registrant has not demonstrated that he fully understands the significance of his actions and so there is a likelihood of repetition.

Decision on Grounds

97. The Panel having made and handed down findings on the facts, determined that it would consider misconduct and impairment together in this instance. The Panel was aware that there was a HCPTS Practice Note on the issue of establishing ‘Fitness to Practise’ and would make reference to it during its deliberations.

98. The Panel appreciated that fitness to practise is a two-stage process requiring it firstly to determine whether the conduct alleged amounts to misconduct, and then to undertake an assessment of whether the Registrant is fit, as of today, to practise without restriction. The Panel went on to consider the matters of misconduct and impairment sequentially.

99. The Panel appreciated that at this stage in the proceedings there is no onus on the HCPC, and the issue of misconduct is a matter for the judgement of the Panel. The Panel had taken advice from the Legal Assessor. From that advice the Panel noted the terms in which misconduct has been defined and that it is ‘serious’ misconduct or conduct which fellow practitioners would consider as ‘deplorable’.

100. The Panel noted the Legal Assessor’s advice that:

⦁ misconduct is a matter for the Panel’s independent judgment, and there is no burden or standard of proof;

⦁ Cheatle v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin) confirmed that misconduct and impairment are separate stages of the decision-making process;

⦁ There is no statutory definition, but guidance is given by the caselaw, including Roylance v GMC (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 31 where Lord Clyde said “Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed.....in the particular circumstances”;

⦁ In Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317 misconduct was described as “conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”;

⦁ The case of Khan v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 374 (admin) is authority for the proposition that dishonesty is always serious;

⦁ The case of Schodlock v GMC [2015] EWCA Civ 769, discouraged panels from cumulating a number of ‘non-serious’ misconduct findings in order to come to a cumulative finding of serious professional misconduct.

101. The Panel bore in mind the HCPC’s submissions, and the further evidence and statements made by the Registrant. At this stage there was fresh documentary evidence in the form of five professional references. In this regard the Panel noted that only one of those references had recorded that it had been written with full knowledge of these proceedings. These references were all historic and there was nothing from a colleague or senior practitioner in relation to the Registrant’s most recent workplace placements. Three of the references were more in the nature of a general reference, and one referred to the Registrant’s honesty which the Panel gave limited weight to, in view of its earlier findings on dishonesty.

102. In relation to Particular 1, the recruitment process for the position of CPT, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s actions had been deliberate and with a view to securing a position, which although financially not an improvement, came with access to benefits for his career in the longer term. There had been three separate findings of dishonesty in relation to his omissions during the recruitment process. The fact of providing a successor organisation to his former employer, with false information about employment with that former employer, was, in the Panel’s view, a very bold and risky course of action.

103. Panel also noted that the position sought was exempt from the Rehabilitation of offenders Act 1974. The interview proforma further states:

‘Do you have any convictions, cautions, reprimands or final warnings that are not ‘protected’ as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exemption) Order 1975 as amended in 2013’.

Particular 1(a)(i) – misconduct

104. The preparation of the online application form involved the premeditated decision to present the Registrant’s period of employment in 2002 in a favourable light. This was not an oversight but an intentional omission and reflected the Registrant’s stated position that in his mind the dismissal should never have happened. The Registrant appears to have taken corrective action to address what to his mind he considered to be unfair dismissal. He did this by removing reference to the contract of employment and subsuming this period within another form of employment. The withholding of this key and critical information would have misled the decision-maker. The further factor of signing the declaration when aware that there were intentional omissions compounded that misconduct. The Panel found that this conduct was a serious falling short of the standard expected, and was misconduct.

Particular1(a)(ii) – misconduct

105. It was unclear to the Panel as to how and why the CV had been produced in addition to the information on the online application form. However, having produced an edited history of employment online, the CV given to the Trust had to reflect the detail written in the online application. The Panel appreciates that a CV may to some extent be selective, ignoring for instance, school level qualifications which over time become irrelevant. However, a work-based record of historic employment should be comprehensive. For the same reasons as 1(a)(i) above, the Panel found this misleading of a future employer to be serious misconduct.

Particular 1(b) – misconduct

106. The Registrant was directly asked at interview whether he had ever been dismissed from employment, and replied that he had not. The interview gave the Registrant opportunity to explain the circumstances of any previous dismissal, but this had not been taken by the Registrant. As JB-O stated, if there had been disclosure then, there would have been an opportunity to discuss the matter, and an informed decision could have been made. The omission to provide this detail was deliberate and was serious misconduct.

Particular 2 – misconduct

107. As stated above under findings of fact, this application had been made using the Registrant’s previous application as a starting point, and some details had been updated. However, the Registrant and not gone back to correct the omission from his employment history. The Panel was cognisant that, to do so at this point, when the Registrant was already employed by the Trust, would have been much more difficult than making the disclosure at the time of the original application. However, this deliberate omission was no less serious. Indeed, the situation would not have arisen had the Registrant been honest from the outset. The Panel determined that again, the omission was sufficiently serious to constitute misconduct.

Particular 3 – misconduct

108. The Panel considered that given the function of the Regulator, the Registrant’s failure to provide all relevant information in an application for admission to the Register, was inherently serious. It was inevitable that if the true position were, one day, to come to light, the Regulator would take action, in view of its duty to protect the public and uphold standards. Acting contrary to one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, when seeking formal admission to the profession, could not be regarded as anything other than serious, and as such, was misconduct.

Particular 4 – misconduct

109. The Panel had found the Registrant’s conduct, as outlined above, to be a deliberate intention to deceive the Regulator. The Panel had no confidence that the Registrant would have contacted the Regulator about his dismissal had the Trust not already made a referral. He left renewing his registration until the last moment, and then sought to minimise his dishonesty and the basis for his dismissal. For these reasons, the Panel found that the Registrant’s actions in this respect again amount to serious misconduct.

Particular 5 – misconduct

110. With regard to particular 5, the Panel having found dishonesty in relation to each of particulars 1-4, and taking into account that dishonesty is always serious as it is contrary to one of the most fundamental values of the profession, the Panel concluded that the Registrants dishonesty was serious misconduct.

111. The Panel, having concluded that each of the matters found proven amount to serious misconduct, there was no need to consider them collectively. The Panel agreed with the submission on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant’s actions had fallen far short of the expected standard, as set out at Standard 9 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics.

Decision on Impairment

112. The Panel was aware that at this stage it was assessing the Registrant’s current fitness to practise without restriction. Such assessment is of the Registrant today.

113. The Panel had heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In assessing impairment, the panel was looking at the past to assess the present. It was aware of the three-fold test set out in the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin): namely whether the conduct was remediable, whether it had been remedied, and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated. The Panel was aware that its consideration must take into account public confidence in the profession, and whether this would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made.

114. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant is currently impaired on the personal component. It noted that dishonesty is always difficult to remediate because, in contrast to clinical failings, it is attitudinal and goes to a fundamental value required of a registered professional. However, the Panel considered that the dishonesty in this case is in principle remediable. It had arisen out of an event which the Registrant had then attempted to hide in order to further his career. The Panel took into account the admissions that the Registrant has made at this hearing. He accepted that what he did was wrong, and had given an assurance to the Panel that he would not repeat such conduct.

115. Balanced against that, if, as advanced by the Registrant, the matters he wished to distance himself from were the result of youthful exuberance, this could have been explained. If, as submitted by the Registrant, his CRB disclosure in 2002 was an administrative error, then again, it could have been explained to a prospective employer and the Regulator, and put into context. The decision to hide these issues had, in the Panel’s view, led from one deceit to another and one untenable explanation to another. It had led the Registrant to lie and deceive his regulator and to appear before this Tribunal.

116. Against this background, the Panel considered whether the conduct had been remedied. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant had not demonstrated full insight. He had apologised, expressed remorse and regret, accepted that his conduct was dishonest, (although he did not see it as such at the time), and informed the Panel that he had undertaken some courses. He also referred to delivering training in ethics, and using this matter as an example, to make clear to others the expected standards. However, he had not provided the Panel with certificates for the courses he had undertaken, or an up-to-date CPD log. The Panel noted that no reflective statement had been provided by the Registrant, but it bore in mind that the Registrant was unrepresented and had not had the advantage of being advised as to the types of documentary evidence that panels expect to see. The Panel nevertheless remained concerned that the Registrant had not demonstrated a clear understanding of why his conduct was so concerning to his former employer and the Regulator.

117. The Panel considered the testimonials that the Registrant had provided. These were general character references, and only one referee said they were aware of these proceedings. They were not up to date. The Panel did not find them particularly helpful, but noted their content.

118. Ultimately, the Panel had little to work with to assist it in determining the extent to which the Registrant’s conduct had been remediated. Some of his evidence had been vague, particularly his answers to specific questions. Some of his evidence had been inconsistent, and he had, in the Panel’s view, at all stages, including in relation to renewing his registration with the HCPC, minimised the seriousness of his actions. Further, the Panel considered that the Registrant had, at best, stretched the truth, even in his evidence in this hearing. He had maintained that he had been employed in another role for the duration of the period he was working for MRAS in 2002, when in fact, that had been a zero hours contract, and he had not, in reality, been substantively employed.

119. The Panel could not conclude, on the information and evidence before it, that the Registrant had fully remediated his past conduct. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant had not fully grasped the seriousness of his misconduct and there remained, at some level, a risk of repetition. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the Registrant had not only been dishonest with his employer, but also with the Regulator. The Panel considered that further repetition of dishonest conduct would not necessarily take the same form, and there would be potential for patients or the public to be put at risk of harm. Whilst, to the Registrant’s credit, he had been open with the Hospital after the Trust dismissed him, the Panel only had his word for this. No reference had been provided by the Hospital in relation to these proceedings. The Panel was not satisfied that, should the Registrant find himself in difficult circumstances in the future, he would not act dishonestly again. The Panel found current impairment on the personal component.

120. The Panel went on to consider the public component. The misconduct found was dishonesty. It followed that the Registrant had violated a fundamental tenet of the profession. Such conduct brings the profession into disrepute and it follows that it will always undermine public trust and confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that an informed member of the public would expect a finding of impairment to be made in the circumstances of this case. The misconduct consisted of repeatedly misleading those tasked with upholding standards and carrying out checks to ensure that only those who are both competent and suitable to work in the profession are allowed to do so. The nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct was such that a finding of impairment was required, in the Panel’s view, in order to uphold proper professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

Adjournment application made by the Registrant on 18 July 2023

121. The Registrant had emailed the Hearings officer at 11.51 on 17 July, shortly after the Panel’s decision on misconduct and impairment had been handed down. His email was an application for an adjournment and read:

“Zara
Thanks for your email. I have a childcare issue that has arisen over the weekend. I have tried to get this covered with the few available option but to no avail. As you know I am fully engaged and committed to all of this process and this in mind would respectfully ask the panel for an adjournment. (sic)
Thank you for your help on this matter.”

122. The hearings officer sought clarification as to whether the Registrant was unavailable for the whole day. The Registrant replied that he had no option for childcare provision and could not fully engage with the process whilst caring for a young child.

123. The Panel and HCPC representative were informed of this request. The HCPC representative replied that his instructions were that the Registrant should make his application at the hearing on 18 July.

124. At the commencement of the hearing the Registrant made his application. He informed the Panel that he wished the matter to be adjourned as he would like to participate fully. However, he was caring for a small poorly child and there were no other childcare options. He stated that the situation had arisen in the last day or so. He had emailed the Hearings Officer. Neither he nor the child had had much sleep. He had not had the opportunity to read the Panel’s findings, and in light of this he was not able to adequately represent himself.

125. Following a short adjournment for the HCPC representative to take instructions, it was confirmed that the HCPC was neutral on the application.

126. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the matters it should take into account, as set out in the case of CPS v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108, when deciding the issue. It was aware that it was balancing the prejudice to the Registrant of needing to participate in these circumstances against the prejudice caused to the HCPC and the public interest in not concluding the matter today.

127. The Panel noted that this was not the first request the Registrant had made for an adjournment. The previous adjournment, requested due to his own health, had been agreed, resulting in the matter going part heard.

128. The Panel noted an emerging pattern in the timing and nature of the Registrant’s requests. Both the previous request, and this request, had been made shortly after decisions being handed down.

129. The Panel was surprised that the Registrant’s email had simply referred to childcare issues, and made no mention of illness. These are two separate things, it being unusual to be able to arrange childcare for an ill child. The Panel considered that the basis for the Registrant’s request had changed from one day to the next. The Registrant’s explanation was inconsistent as he had informed the hearings officer via email that he had problems with childcare over the weekend, yet he informed the Panel that his child had become ill late on Sunday night. Further, if the child had become ill on Sunday night, it would have been reasonable for the Registrant to have contacted the HCPC much sooner on the Monday morning, and would have made reference to illness. Indeed, the Panel considered that when a child is ill, ‘childcare’ in the usual sense is not the issue, [redacted]. Whilst it may be that the Registrant had attempted to get a family member or close friend to look after the child, he had volunteered no information in this respect. Another matter that in the Panel’s view was not entirely logical, was that the Registrant was clear before lunchtime on the Monday that he would be unable to participate at all on the Tuesday. In the Panel’s experience, such illnesses in children can improve quickly. The Panel found it strange that the Registrant did not say that he would need to see how the child was the following day, before deciding whether or not he could attend.

130. Against this background, the Panel considered the guidance given in CPS v Picton.

⦁ The consequence of agreeing the request was that the matter would again go part heard. The likely length of the adjournment would be months, given the Panel’s availability and prior commitments;

⦁ In the Panel’s view, a pattern of adjournment requests was arising, both in terms of timing (following receipt of a decision) and reasons (illness). The Panel had some doubt as to whether the Registrant was in fact, unable to participate, given that he had participated effectively so far today;

⦁ The Panel was of the view that the prejudice to the Registrant at this stage in the hearing, when findings on all matters save for sanction had been made, was far less than if the request had been made before such decisions had been made, or before evidence had been heard and witnesses cross-examined. It considered that in light of its findings, combined with the fact that mitigation can be given little weight at the sanction stage in regulatory proceedings, the overall prejudice to the Registrant was limited. The Panel would largely be guided by the Sanctions Policy. Its considerations may be supplemented by submissions, but there was limited scope for those given the nature of the findings it had made;

⦁ In contrast, the prejudice to the Regulator and the regulatory process of not concluding the matter today was more significant. The hearing commenced in May and related to events which took place on 2018. The Regulator has a duty to the profession and the wider public interest to deal with matters expeditiously. Indeed, the Registrant would also be adversely affected by the matter being unnecessarily prolonged, rather than having the finality of a decision on sanction today.

131. The Panel determined it would not grant the application. It concluded that the basis for the request was inconsistent, nor was it supported by any evidence. Further, the Panel did not consider that having an unwell child would prevent the Registrant from participating, as demonstrated by the Registrant’s participation on the morning of 18 July 2023. The Panel could make adjustments to enable to Registrant to participate today, such as allowing breaks if the child needed attention or support. There was relatively little time during which the Registrant would in fact need to attend. The parties were only needed in the hearing room to make submissions on sanction. Thereafter the Panel would be deliberating and the decision on sanction drafted.

132. When the hearing reconvened at 1pm the Registrant did not attend. The Hearings Officer had left two messages for the Registrant informing him that the Panel would hand down its decision on his adjournment application at 1pm, and that if the application were not granted, the Panel would expect submissions on sanction from the parties. There had also been email contact, in which the Registrant again said that he had still not been able to read the Panel’s determination on misconduct and impairment.

133. The Panel was aware that in accordance with the Conduct and Competence and Committee Procedure Rules, it has a discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant where it is satisfied that the Registrant is aware of the hearing. It was aware that in exercising this discretion, fairness to the Registrant and the Regulator were the factors it needed to balance. It considered that the balancing exercise that it had carried out when considering the adjournment application was equally applicable to the decision to proceed in absence. Given the stage of the proceedings, there was limited disadvantage to the Registrant. The Panel was of the view that there was no good reason why the Registrant, even looking after an ill child, had not been able to read the determination handed down the previous day, and prepare submissions on sanction, having been sent the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel’s view was that the Registrant was trying to frustrate the process and there was no benefit to either party in prolonging these proceedings any further. The Panel concluded that the balance again lies in favour of the public interest in concluding the matter expeditiously.

134. The Panel invited submissions on sanction from Mr Bridges, who appeared for the HCPC. Mr Bridges did not urge the Panel to any particular sanction, he submitted that the appropriate sanction was a matter of judgement for the Panel. He did however submit that the primary function of sanction is not to punish a registrant, but to protect the public. Mr Bridges referred the Panel to paragraphs 56-58 of the HCPC’s Sanction Policy which relate to dishonesty. He submitted that aggravating factors in this case were that the Registrant’s conduct represented a breach of trust, there had been repetition of the dishonest conduct, and there had been a lack of insight on the part of the Registrant. He noted the Panel’s earlier finding in this respect and that it had found there was a risk of repetition. Mr Bridges submitted that the Registrant’s limited insight and the consequent risk of repetition should weigh heavily in the Panel’s consideration of the matter of sanction.

135. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, namely that it should:

⦁ Consider whether there are any particular mitigating or aggravating features;

⦁ Have regard to the Sanctions Policy, and work through the sanctions starting with the least restrictive;

⦁ Have regard to the HCPC’s over-arching objective of protecting the public, maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding proper professional standards

⦁ Impose the minimum sanction necessary to meet the regulatory objective, bearing in mind that the purpose of sanction is not to punish; Sir Anthony Clarke MR in Meadow v GMC [2007] 1 QB 462

⦁ Ensure that any sanction is proportionate, whilst bearing in mind that the interests of the profession take precedence; Bolton v Law Society (1994) 1 WLR 512, endorsed in the context of health regulation in The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council (Fleischmann) [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin):

⦁ Bear in mind that remediation carries little weight at the sanction stage; GMC v Patel [2018] EWHC 171 (Admin);

⦁ Be aware that there is generally considered to be a ‘scale of dishonesty’ and there is not an automatic presumption of strike-off; Hassan v GOC [2013] EWHC 1887 (Admin); Lusinga v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2017] EWHC (Admin) 1458; Watters v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2017] EWHC (Admin) 1888.

Decision on Sanction

136. The Panel began by reminding itself of the context in which the allegations arose. There had been a CRB disclosure to a past employer, which should not have occurred. In terms of the Registrant’s initial dishonesty, not disclosing that he had previously been dismissed due to an unsatisfactory CRB check, in his application for employment with North Western Ambulance Service, there had been concealment. The Panel was of the view that this, in itself, would have been at the lower end of the spectrum of dishonesty. However, thereafter, particularly in relation to the allegations relating to the Registrant’s conduct and communication with the Regulator, there had been an escalation to active deception. This was a distinction made in some of the caselaw, namely Lusinga. The starting point for the Panel was therefore that the Registrant’s conduct had moved beyond the lower end of the scale, to at least the middle, given both the dishonest statements in relation to whether he had self-referred to the HCPC, and the fact that repeated dishonesty had been found.

137. The Panel considered that the mitigating factors were:

⦁ The remorse expressed by the Registrant appeared genuine;

⦁ The dishonesty was not related to the Registrant’s clinical practice and did not directly put patients at risk of harm.

138. Aggravating factors, in addition to those outlined by Mr Bridges, which the panel accepted, were:

⦁ The dishonesty was also directed towards the Regulator, which was in the Panel’s view, particularly serious because the role of the Regulator includes ensuring that only fit and proper people are allowed to register and practise as registered professionals. Subverting this process and undermining the regulatory process was particularly egregious;

⦁ The dishonesty had spanned years and had become more serious as time went on;

⦁ Whilst the Registrant had made admissions at the hearing, he had not done so prior to that, and some of his admissions had only been made when it became obvious that the evidence was indisputable;

⦁ Whilst the Registrant had stated on more than one occasion that he wished to engage with the process, the Panel concluded that his engagement had in fact been more superficial than meaningful. Whilst he had attended the first three days of the hearing and given evidence, he had not fully engaged with the process prior to that, in that he had not taken steps prior to the hearing to actively seek to remediate his conduct. On the final day of the hearing he had decided not to engage after his adjournment application was refused, notwithstanding that he had been able to participate in the hearing that morning.

139. The Panel reminded itself of its findings on impairment, and bore in mind the nature of the Registrant’s engagement with the process on this final day of the hearing. The Registrant’s conduct today, notably the fact that he had not provided full information to the Regulator when requesting an adjournment, coupled with the Panel’s concern that he had not provided a compelling reason as to why he could not read the decision on misconduct and impairment, led the Panel to question how candid the Registrant had been. The Panel reflected on the evidence that the Registrant had given in relation to particular 4 of the allegations, and considered that this was a further example of the Registrant not giving full answers to questions, seemingly in an attempt to mislead. He had then made an admission when there was no other feasible option.

140. This led the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s conduct during the course of this hearing indicated that he had not learnt from his previous errors. His conduct in the repeated dishonesty which had led him to appear before this Panel, combined with his lack of candour before the Panel, meant the Panel could only conclude that his dishonesty was deep seated and attitudinal. The Panel had already determined that there is a risk of repetition, and the Registrant’s conduct over these final two days of the hearing confirmed in the Panel’s minds that the Registrant lacked integrity. The Registrant’s conduct in this respect meant that the Panel had no confidence that he would act honestly with employers, his regulator and others going forward.

141. Against this background, the Panel considered the Sanctions Policy. It was of the view that taking no action or imposing a caution order were not appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct.

142. In relation to conditions of practice, these were not, in the Panel’s view, appropriate as it could not formulate conditions to deal with the attitudinal issue of repeated dishonesty.

143. Moving to suspension, the Panel carefully considered the guidance and noted that a suspension order may be appropriate where the concerns represent a serious breach of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics. However, as outlined above, the Panel was concerned that the Registrant lacked insight and in the Panel’s view, there was a likelihood of repetition of the misconduct. The Panel had not been provided with evidence that the Registrant was likely to remedy his failings, in view of his attitude and conduct during this hearing, notably his lack of candour, which was a very serious concern for the Panel.

144. The Panel therefore moved to consider strike-off. It concluded that the dishonesty it had found was serious. It was not isolated or an act in the spur of the moment. It was planned, and escalated in nature, from concealment to active misleading. There were repeated acts over a number of years. As above, the fact that the Registrant had been dishonest with his Regulator was of particular concern. In his evidence to the Panel, the Registrant had been unwilling to recognise the extent of his dishonesty, and appeared unwilling to remediate, on the basis that his actions stemmed from a sense of injustice. Matters spiralled from the initial concealment of a period of employment, and the Registrant had not taken responsibility for his actions thereafter.

145. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s values and behaviour were incompatible with continued registration. As such, strike-off was the only sanction which would adequately protect the public, uphold the public interest and maintain standards.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Timothy Talbot-Johnstone from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1.In light of its findings on sanction, the Panel next considered an application by Mr Bridges for an interim suspension order to cover the appeal period before the final order becomes effective.

2. Mr Bridges submitted that an interim order should be made to cover the appeal period in light of the Panel’s finding that a strike-off order is necessary to protect the public and in the public interest. He submitted that an interim order is necessary on both these grounds. He asked for an interim order for 18 months to cover the time taken to deal with any appeal. Mr Bridges submitted that the Registrant is on notice of the possibility of this application by virtue of the notice of hearing.

3. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it could make an interim order if doing so was necessary for protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest or in the interests of the Registrant. The Panel should bear in mind its previous findings and also consider the appropriate form and duration of any interim order.

4. The Panel next considered whether to impose an interim order. It was mindful of its earlier findings and that it had found there was a risk of repetition of the misconduct and therefore a risk of harm. The Panel decided that it would be wholly incompatible with those earlier findings if there was no interim order in place.

5. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an interim suspension order is necessary for the protection of the public and in the public interest. It made the interim order for 18 months, to allow for any appeal. When the appeal period expires this interim order will come to an end unless an appeal has been filed with the High Court. If there is no appeal, the final order shall take effect when the appeal period expires.

 

History of Hearings for Timothy Talbot-Johnstone

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
17/07/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off
22/05/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard
21/11/2022	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned