Abigail St. John

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel indicated it would make decisions on the facts, grounds and impairment at the first stage of this hearing. The Registrant stated that she admits factual particular 1. She denies the remaining factual particulars.
Background

2. Abigail St. John (‘the Registrant’) is a registered Podiatrist. On 23 July 2020, she completed a bi-annual renewal form to renew her registration with the HCPC. Within the professional declaration section of the renewal form there is a declaration which states: since my last registration there has been no change relating to my good character (this includes any conviction or caution, if any, that you are required to disclose), or any change to my health that may affect my ability to practise safely and effectively. The Registrant did not tick the box to indicate that this declaration was correct and instead wrote on the form: ‘Drive/Attempt to Drive MPV WHI’. On 28 August 2020 the renewal form was passed to the HCPC Fitness to Practise department, as a self-referral.

3. Following an investigation by the HCPC it is alleged that the Registrant: firstly failed to disclose a conviction which occurred 9 months earlier on 20 October 2019 to the HCPC in a timely manner; secondly on two occasions informed the HCPC that she had not been arrested or convicted of an offence, when that was not the case; thirdly informed Kingsley Napley (the HCPC’s solicitors) that she was not arrested and/or breathalysed by the Garda (police) at the scene and/ or at the station, when that was not the case.

4. The HCPC alleges that if the conduct alleged in particulars 2 to 6 inclusive above is found proved, this establishes that the Registrant’s actions are serious, in that the Registrant attempted to mislead the HCPC and Kingsley Napley about her conviction, provided inaccurate information about her conviction on more than one occasion and failed to be open and honest with her regulator. In doing so, the HCPC alleges that the Registrant breached standards 9, 9.5 and 9.6 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

5. If there is a finding of misconduct, the HCPC alleges that the Registrant has failed to accept or address her misconduct and her attempts to conceal and mislead in relation to the incident demonstrate a lack of insight, such that her fitness to practise is currently impaired. Furthermore, the alleged conviction and misconduct is so serious that a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

HCPC Evidence

6. The Panel considered the three HCPC witness statements and exhibits, which comprised the HCPC case. These witnesses did not attend the hearing as their evidence was not disputed.
The relevant Court Order states that the Registrant: On the 20-Oct-2019 at MOUNT JULIET ESTATE THOMASTOWN KILKENNY a public place lN THE SAID DISTRICT COURT AREA OF KILKENNY, did drive a mechanically propelled vehicle registration number 192D3726 while there was present in your body a quantity of alcohol such that, within 3 hours after so driving, the concentration of alcohol in your breath did exceed a concentration of 22 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, to wit 83 MICROGRAMMES… the said defendant having pleaded guilty It was adjudged that the said defendant be convicted of said offence and pay a Fine of EUR500.00 making a total sum of EUR500.00 within 90 days. It was ordered that the defendant be convicted of the said offence and be disqualified for holding a driving licence for a period of 3 years and particulars of disqualification to take effect from 04-Nov-2019 and that in accordance with Section 36 of the Road Traffìc Act 1961 as amended by Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 particulars of the said conviction and disqualification order be endorsed on the defendant's driving licence or on the defendant's driving record as applicable.

7. The Police report dated 1 June 2022 states: On the 20/10/2020 one Abigail St John was attending a wedding on the grounds of Mount Juliet Estate. Due to an apparent argument with her partner Abigail St John left the wedding and attempted to leave the venue in her rental vehicle 192D3726 a red Skoda Citigo which resulted in her driving into a bollard on the property. Abigail St John then remained in the driver seat. At 00:23am on the 20/10/19 staff of Mount Juliet Estate contacted Thomastown Garda Station and reported what they believed to be a drunk driver had been involved in a collision on the grounds. Garda Tighe and Garda Donnellan who were on patrol in the Thomastown area proceeded to Mount Juliet where on arrival Garda Tighe located Abigail St John still in the driver seat. When asked whether she needed any medical attention Abigail St John replied no. Garda Tighe then began to ascertain details. This was a single vehicle incident, the vehicle being a red Skoda Citigo registered number 192D3726 which at the time of the incident belonged to a rental company. The vehicle sustained minor damage to the front bumper. Garda Tighe cautioned Abigail St John and when asked she admitted to both driving at the time of the collision and to driving while intoxicated at the time of the collision. Abigail St John was able to produce a full UK Driving Licence. From observations of Abigail St Johns’ condition, her admissions to driving and consuming alcohol Garda Tighe formed his opinion that Abigail St John had committed an offence. At 01:35 on the 20/10/2019 Garda Tighe arrested Abigail St John for an Offence contrary to Section 4 of The RTA 2010. She was then conveyed to Kilkenny Garda Station. Abigail St John was then introduced to member in charge Garda Emmet O Keefe. At 02:50am Garda Tighe conveyed Abigail St John to the doctor’s room along with Garda Niamh Doran the intoxylser operator. A specimen of breath was taken from Abigail St John. On analysis the specimen contained a concentration of 83 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of [breath]. At 04:12am Garda Tighe charged Abigail St John as set out on charge sheet number 20476617. She was then held in custody for a special sitting of Kilkenny District Court. Abigail St John was produced to the Special sitting where details of arrest charge and caution were given by Garda Tighe. After pleading guilty to all offences Abigail St John received a fine of €500 and a three year driving disqualification.

8. The Registrant’s email to the HCPC dated 24 August 2020 stated: I was in the Republic of Ireland attending a wedding and was asked to move my car in order to allow a larger vehicle out of the car park. I was on private land not a public road. The local Guardia were attending another incident at the time, saw me exit my car and approached me and issued me with a driving penalty. I was advised that since the incident happened on private land I could contest the decision of a driving penalty, however, I felt at the time the decision to accept a driving penalty outweighed the time off work and my busy caseload to fly back and forth to Ireland in order to attend court. I felt at the time that since I do not drive in London and do not need a car for work it would be easier to accept the driving penalty. I was also advised from the Guardia that they were unsure with Brexit if this would even apply when I returned to the UK. They did not take my driving license off me and they advised that I check with the DVLA once I was back in the UK. I checked the DVLA and no driving penalties have been added to my licence. I would be more than happy to give you my details so you could check on the online DVLA driver's licence checker for yourselves as I feel it is important to be completely transparent. I felt that honesty was the best policy in this scenario and that is why I have informed yourselves.

9. An HCPC telephone attendance note dated 23 September 2020 in respect of the Registrant states: Phone call with registrant to ascertain further details of incident. The registrant was never arrested or convicted of drink driving as the incident was on private land. She was asked to pay a fine which she did and was told she would not be able to drive in Europe. No record of this is with the DVLA and this does not appear on her DBS. She paid her fine and no further action was taken.

10. The Registrant’s email to the HCPC dated 11 January 2021 stated: Apologies for taking a while to get back to you. As you can image working patient facing in the NHS is absolutely crazy at the moment. Constant changes and loads of staff off sick, I'm actually the only permanent, full time member of staff left on my team at the minute who is seeing patients, which is why I've taken so long to get back to you. So, I really apologise for keeping you waiting. Hope all is well with you and you had a nice Christmas. With regards to the driving I received a fine but nothing more, no arrest etc. I've attached the details of my license so you can see I have no penalties or disqualifications. If there are any problems just shoot me an email and I'll try to get back to you as quickly as possible.

11. The Registrant’s further email repeating the questions and providing answers to questions from Kingsley Napley on 28 April 2021 stated:

• On what date did this incident occur? October 19th 2019

• You have previously explained that the incident occurred on private land. Where/what was this? Yes on a hotel/golf course car park

• How far did you move your car? About 5 meters

• Were you breathalysed by the Garda at the scene of the incident? No

• Were you arrested? No

• Were you taken to a Garda Station? Yes to be issued with a fine

• And if so, did the Garda conduct any additional tests for example, breath, blood or urine tests? No

• Was the fine issued on the spot? Yes but they sent the fine document to the house which arrived a few weeks later

• The details of your Court Hearing including the date/s and location October 20th 2019 the next day, Kilkenny

• Can you confirm that you attended the hearing whether in person or virtually, or alternatively, that the hearing was conducted in your absence - yes I was there the next day, there was no waiting, nor did I have to go back to Ireland after those dates

• Can you provide us with all related documentation. The only documentation I have is the fine papers which I previously emailed My drivers licence was never confiscated nor was I banned and issued with points as I have already sent screen shots of my drivers licence details screenshots via the dvla website

Registrant’s Evidence

12. The Registrant supplied a witness statement and documents, including character references. She gave evidence at the hearing and confirmed the contents of her witness statement as follows: Since moving to London in 2015 she worked at St George’s NHS Foundation Trust for 2 years and since 2018 has been working at Central London Community Health, as a high-risk Diabetes Podiatrist.

13. The Registrant admits that she was convicted in the Kilkenny District Court in the Republic of Ireland on 20 October 2019, for an offence of driving with excess alcohol. She was disqualified from driving for 3 years and fined 500 euros. Her breath alcohol reading was approximately 4 times over the applicable limit.

14. The Registrant states that in October 2019 she was present at a wedding in Ireland. Her vehicle was parked on private land when she was asked to move it. Upon exiting the vehicle, she was approached by the Police and breathalysed. She was over the limit, and this resulted in her conviction. She states at the time that she was not aware that she had received a conviction and misunderstood the circumstances. She thought she had been issued with a driving penalty, which included a fine. Her interaction with the police was casual. She states she was never arrested or placed in handcuffs and walked together with the Police Officers to the Police station. She genuinely believed her fine was not classed as a ‘conviction.’ She should never have attempted to move the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. She feels deep shame, regret, and remorse about this incident and immediately took responsibility by pleading guilty. She has paid the fine and complied with the sentence.

15. The Registrant states that if a member of the public knew of these allegations, they may think less of all Podiatrists, and may not feel safe in receiving treatment from a Podiatrist. Her conviction had the potential to significantly undermine public trust and confidence in the profession. Her conduct breached the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, in particular Standards 9.1 and 9.5. She has reflected extensively, revisited the HCPC standards and such conduct would never be repeated.

16. The Registrant states she informed the HCPC at the renewal of her registration which is when she believed they needed to be informed. There was a delay in reporting the conviction. Initially, she did not realise she had received a ‘conviction’. She thought it was a driving penalty / fine. This was influenced by the fact that her interactions with the police felt casual and the fact that she was never placed in handcuffs or put in a Police cell. She checked with the DVLA and no penalty points had been added to her driving licence. It was only when she received a DBS certificate dated 30 July 2021, following a promotion at work, that she learned that she had received a conviction. She misconstrued the HCPC requirement to report the conviction and mistakenly believed that she had to inform the HCPC on renewal of her registration. She now recognises that this was a major error in judgment.

17. The delay in reporting the incident between October 2019 to July 2020, was due to the fact she thought she had only received a driving penalty. With the benefit of hindsight, she now recognises that if she was unsure about whether a matter needed to be reported to the HCPC she should have revisited the standards, and could have erred on the side of caution by contacting the HCPC and seeking guidance. However she did not formally understand that she had been convicted. She believed that it was a driving penalty in Europe, not in the UK and as her driving licence had not been removed from her and there were no penalty points or disqualification on the DVLA record, she did not believe the penalty applied in the UK.

18. The Registrant accepts she notified the HCPC that she had not been arrested in relation to the offence. The Police asked her if someone could pick her up, so she didn’t feel she was being held against her will or under arrest and the Police asked if she would come back the next day. Her memory is somewhat unclear as she was under the influence of alcohol and was unsure of what she should divulge. She did not receive any legal advice at the time and had not had any legal advice since the incident. In September 2020 she was suffering from complete burnout working full time without a single day off for sickness or any other reason, 7 months into the pandemic.

19. On 23 September 2020, and 11 January 2021, she told the HCPC that she had not been arrested because this is what she genuinely believed. She did not recall being breathalysed or arrested and was receiving numerous phone calls and emails from individuals at the HCPC, and found the process confusing. She did not look to conceal her actions. The delay in reporting the conviction was an honest mistake. She refers to the character references which also attest to her honesty. There have been no further instances of driving under the influence of alcohol. She tried to call the HCPC during June 2020, however no one was answering the phone. She informed the HCPC at the date of her renewal, printed off the form, hand wrote on it and scanned and emailed her form back to the HCPC. She had to do this because the online version of the form would not allow her to add any details once she had clicked “yes” to the question about any changes in circumstances.

20. The Registrant states she always has her patients’ best interests at heart which is why she works in the NHS, full time, with less than 5 days off in 9 years. She had no idea the conviction was so serious because of the way it was handled, the ambiguity of Brexit, being in a different jurisdiction and advice from the Garda (the Police) at the time.

21. The Registrant has supplied testimonials from SL (Podiatry Clinical Lead), AS (Administrator and Receptionist) and DF (Associate Assistant Principal Personal Development).

22. In her evidence at the hearing the Registrant stated she did not receive a copy of the Court Order which is included in the HCPC documents. She received the fine payment summary and this included the official information which she wrote on her HCPC renewal form dated 23 July 2020. She later signed a consent form at the request of Kingsley Napley, which enabled the Court Order and police report to be obtained by the HCPC from the Irish authorities. She was not sure whether she had been officially breathalysed because the Police told her it would not count after the breathalyser was administered at the Police station. She admitted driving with excess alcohol at the Court hearing because she knew she was over the limit, irrespective of the breathalyser test. She was not offered any legal advice at the Police station and stated that the effects of the alcohol had worn off when she appeared in Court.

Legal Assessor’s advice

23. The Panel was advised by the Legal Assessor to consider the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Conviction and Caution Allegations. Under Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 there is a statutory ground of conviction for a criminal offence. The Registrant has admitted the fact of the conviction and the conviction has been proved to the requisite standard by the Kilkenny District Court record of conviction. This Practice Note states: conviction allegations are not about punishing a registrant twice. A conviction or caution should only lead to further action being taken against a registrant if, as a consequence of that conviction, the registrant’s fitness to practise is found to be impaired.

24. As to whether the facts are proved the burden of proof rests with the HCPC to prove the facts to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.

25. As to particular 6, the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 set out the test for dishonesty at [74]: 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.

26. The Panel must therefore adopt a two-stage approach when considering alleged dishonesty:

a. First ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the Registrant’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of her belief may evidence whether she held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that the belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held;

b. Secondly determine whether the Registrant’s conduct was dishonest by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people. It is not necessary for the Registrant to appreciate that what she has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

27. In relation to the ground of misconduct there is no statutory definition of misconduct, but Lord Clyde in the case of Roylance v General Medical Council (No.2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 stated that: “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.”

28. The Panel should therefore consider if the Registrant has breached any of the HCPC’s Standards. In relation to any of the factual particulars 2 to 6 which are proved, the Panel has to decide whether they amount to misconduct. The fact that the Panel has found some facts proved, does not mean that a finding of the statutory ground of misconduct will follow. Similarly, if the Panel finds that the statutory ground applies, a finding of impairment is not automatic. Each stage must be considered separately and reasons given for the Panel's decisions. Whether any of the proved facts amount to serious misconduct and if so, whether the Registrant is currently impaired, are matters for the Panel's judgement.

29. The Panel should also consider the HCPTS Practice Note on Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired. The test of impairment is expressed in the present tense; that fitness to practise “is impaired.” A Registrant may have been impaired at the time of the failing identified in the allegation. However, the Panel’s task is to form a view about the Registrant’s current fitness to practise, by taking account of the way in which the Registrant has acted or failed to act in the past and, looking forwards, whether the Registrant’s ability to practise safely is compromised; and/or whether public confidence in the profession would be undermined, in the absence of a finding of impairment.

30. Thus, in determining fitness to practise the Panel must take account of two broad components: the ‘personal’ component: the current competence, behaviour etc. of the Registrant; and the ‘public’ component: including the critically important public policy issues.

31. When assessing insight, the Panel will need to consider what effect, if any, the fact that the Registrant has denied the allegation has on this assessment. It is wrong to conclude that a Registrant who has denied the facts alleged cannot then demonstrate insight at the impairment stage. Each case must be considered on its own facts, but a nuanced approach should be taken in assessing insight in these circumstances.

32. In considering character evidence for the purpose of determining impairment, the Panel must exercise caution but should not adopt an over-strict approach. It is important that all evidence which is relevant to the question of impairment is considered.

Decision on Facts

33. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. In considering whether any of the facts are proved, the burden of proof rests with the HCPC to prove the facts to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. The Panel has taken into account the Registrant’s good character and the testimonials she has supplied.

34. In respect of particular 1 the Panel finds the fact of the conviction is proved by the Court Order and the Registrant’s admission.

35. The Panel finds particular 2 is proved because the Registrant did not provide any information to the HCPC for 9 months and therefore she failed to inform the HCPC of her conviction on 20 October 2019 in a timely manner.

36. The Panel finds particular 3 is proved based on the telephone attendance note dated 23 September 2020. The Registrant stated she was never arrested or convicted of drink driving. The Registrant stated in her evidence that on 23 September 2020 she advised the HCPC that she had not been convicted on 20 October 2019.

37. Particular 4a is proved based on the police report which states that the Registrant was arrested in relation to the drink driving offence dealt with on 20 October 2019. The Registrant’s telephone call on 23 September 2020 stated: The Registrant was never arrested or convicted of drink driving as the incident was on private land.

38. Particular 4b is proved based on the police report which states she was arrested in relation to the drink driving offence dealt with on 20 October 2019. The Registrant’s email dated 11 January 2021 stated: With regards to the driving I received a fine but nothing more, no arrest etc.

39. Particular 5a is proved based on the Registrant’s email sent to Kingsley Napley on 28 April 2021, which states: Were you arrested? No

40. Particular 5b is not proved based on the Registrant’s email sent to Kingsley Napley on 28 April 2021, which states: Were you breathalysed by the Garda at the scene of the incident? No. This particular is not proved because the answer was probably correct, in that it is not clear that a breathalyser test was administered at the scene.

41. Particular 5c is proved based on the Registrant’s email sent to Kingsley Napley on 28 April 2021, which states: Were you taken to a Garda Station? Yes, to be issued with a fine. And if so, did the Garda conduct any additional tests for example, breath, blood or urine tests? No.

42. The Panel has adopted a two-stage approach to particular 6: First to ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the Registrant’s knowledge or belief as to the proved facts in particulars 2 to 5. The reasonableness or otherwise of her belief may evidence whether she held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that the belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. Secondly to determine whether the Registrant’s conduct was dishonest by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people. It is not necessary for the Registrant to appreciate that what she has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

43. The Panel has taken into account her likely professional knowledge, for example an understanding of blood, breath or urine samples and that the Registrant was convicted in the Irish Republic not the UK. In view of the Registrant’s position and previous experience, the Panel finds she was aware of the obligations of HCPC registrants.

44. The Panel finds it is not credible that the Registrant did not know that she had been arrested, breathalysed at the Garda Station and convicted of drink driving, following the Court process on 20 October 2019. She was held overnight at the police station, was taken to Court the following morning and attended in front of a Judge at a specially convened session. She pleaded guilty, and was fined and disqualified from driving for 3 years. The Panel rejects her evidence that she did not know that she had been convicted of an offence until this was disclosed by the Disclosure and Barring Service on 30 July 2021; when she was being promoted by her employer. The Panel found that her account of being confused at the time and not aware she had been breathalysed lacked credibility. She was able to give the Panel a full account of what happened at the Police station despite being over the legal alcohol limit for driving at that time. She also stated that she was not under the influence of alcohol when she appeared in Court.

45. The Panel concludes that the Registrant was trying to hide the nature of her conviction from the HCPC, by deliberately omitting to mention that it was for drink driving. Her evidence was evasive, guarded and lacked credibility. She would have known that she had been convicted of drink driving even if she had been confused by the process in Ireland. She provided as little information as possible to the HCPC. The information she provided was vague and referred to a fine not a conviction and did not give full details of what the Court had imposed. The Panel concluded that she was trying to avoid the consequences of her conviction for a drink driving offence committed when she was almost 4 times over the legal alcohol limit.

46. The Panel finds that the Registrant’s conduct was inherently dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people. It is not necessary for the Registrant to have appreciated that what she did was, by those standards, dishonest; but the Panel finds she did know it was wrong to fail to disclose her drink driving conviction and sentence to her regulatory body and their solicitors, during the course of the investigation prompted by her renewal application dated 23 July 2020.

47. The Registrant’s handwritten note on the HCPC renewal form dated 9 months after her conviction did not refer to drink driving. Although it stated the official wording of the offence provided on the Court’s fine form, these words did not provide sufficient details to explain what had happened to the HCPC. This did not meet her obligation to disclose her conviction in a timely manner. As regards factual particular 2 the Panel is not satisfied that it has been proved that the Registrant was dishonest in her delay in informing the HCPC of her conviction. The Panel found that she had a genuine but mistaken belief that she could inform the HCPC of her conviction at the time of the next renewal of her registration.

48. With regard to particulars 3, 4a, 4b, 5a and 5c it is proved to the requisite standard, the balance of probability that the Registrant was dishonest. Therefore particular 6 is proved with regard to particulars 3, 4a, 4b, 5a and 5c.

Decision on Misconduct

49. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s behaviour in respect of the proved facts amounts to misconduct. Misconduct is a matter for the Panel’s judgment and has been defined as 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 by a practitioner in the particular circumstances and the conduct complained of must be serious. The HCPC submits that the behaviour outlined in the factual particulars 2 to 6 does amount to misconduct in that it constitutes a serious falling short of what would be proper in the circumstances and what the public would expect of an HCPC registered practitioner.

50. The standards ordinarily required to be followed by the Registrant would have been those that were in force at the relevant time, namely: The HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

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

Standard 9.5 states: You must tell us as soon as possible if:

– you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence;

– another organisation responsible for regulating a health or social-care profession has taken action or made a finding against you; or

– 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.

Standard 9.6 states: 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.

The Registrant’s handwritten note on the HCPC renewal form dated 9 months after her conviction did not refer to drink driving or give details of the penalties issued, but merely gave the official police code for the offence, which made little sense to the reader. The Panel found that this did not meet her obligation to disclose her conviction in a timely manner, in breach of Standard 9.5. As regards factual particular 2 the Panel is satisfied that this particular is sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.

51. With regard to factual particulars 3 and 4a the Registrant stated to the HCPC on 23 September 2020 that she had not been arrested or convicted on 20 October 2019. With regard to particular 4b she stated on 11 January 2021 that she had not been arrested. With regard to particular 5a she stated on 28 April 2021 that she had not been arrested. The Panel did not find it credible that she thought she had not been arrested because she had not been handcuffed or been put in a police cell. The Registrant gave a clear account of how she had been taken to the police station, stayed there overnight and was taken to the Court the following morning, where she gave a guilty plea. The Panel found that she was well aware that she had received a fine and a 3 year driving disqualification in consequence of her arrest and conviction and that therefore her statements to the HCPC were dishonest. With regard to particular 5c she stated on 28 April 2021 that she had not been breathalysed at the Garda Station but it was clear from her oral evidence that her breath had been tested at the Police station. She stated she had not been disqualified from driving but this was also not correct as she had been issued a 3 year driving ban in Ireland.

52. The Registrant’s answers to the HCPC and its solicitors’ questions were not full, frank and honest. The Panel found that it was clear to her that she had been arrested and convicted for an offence of drink driving following her guilty plea. She was present and was aware of the facts. Her dishonesty by omission and evasion in respect of particulars 3, 4a, 4b, 5a and 5c was sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct. She was not open and honest with her regulator and provided misleading and inaccurate information to them, in breach of the above HCPC Standards 9.1, 9.5 and 9.6. The ground of misconduct in respect of particulars 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c and 6 is therefore well founded.

Decision on Impairment
53. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The HCPTS Practice Note on Finding that Fitness to Practise is impaired states there are two components:
The personal component, which includes looking at the current competence, behaviour etc. of the individual registrant.
The public component which includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

54. The test of impairment is expressed in the present tense that fitness to practise is impaired at the current date. The Panel has taken into account the lapse of time since these matters occurred but has also looked at the Registrant’s past actions in order to assess her likely future conduct. The Panel considered the need to uphold the HCPC Standards of Conduct and public confidence in the profession, in deciding whether a finding of impairment should be made.

55. Whether a Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired is a matter for the Panel’s judgment. There is no burden of proof on the HCPC or the Registrant at this stage.

56. The Registrant denied the factual particulars 2 to 6 inclusive which have been found proved. She has shown some remorse but has not yet demonstrated meaningful insight into her misconduct. This shows a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the issues raised by her regulatory body. The Registrant has consistently sought to minimise the nature of her conviction and sentence and has been dishonest in her response to the HCPC investigation.

57. The Panel finds the Registrant has not reflected sufficiently on the impact of her misconduct. The risk of repetition is not low, despite the Registrant’s good character and testimonials. The Panel found that she is genuinely remorseful and embarrassed. She said that she feels shame and describes her behaviour as “not like me” and “stupid”; but she lacks awareness of the extent to which the failings giving rise to her misconduct are primarily attitudinal.

58. She engaged with the HCPC investigation at a basic level but has not fully taken responsibility for her actions. She was provided with opportunities to be more open and honest as to the full extent of the criminal offence which she had committed but she did not take them. Instead she tried to cover up her conviction and has maintained a position which is not credible by seeking to minimise the impact of her dishonesty. The Registrant has not demonstrated genuine remorse in her evidence to the Panel during the hearing, e.g. by referring to her conviction as “only a fine”.

59. The Registrant has made things worse for herself following her conviction in 2019 by her conduct since then; up to and including at this hearing. She has consistently sought to divert responsibility from herself; including by blaming the police, the foreign system, Brexit, the Irish documentation and the restricted telephone availability of HCPC staff during the pandemic. She has not taken responsibility for her own failures in that it appears that she has failed to seek advice from her professional body or others as to the way forward in view of the potential implications for her ability to practise. On the contrary she has sought to avoid her responsibility for her conviction and has failed to be open and transparent with her regulator. The Panel therefore finds that the Registrant is currently impaired under the personal component.

60. In considering the public component, as identified in the HCPTS Practice Note, there is a need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, so as to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Registrant’s behaviour fell far short of what is to be expected and it is necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, by finding that there is a current impairment of her fitness to practise.

61. A member of the public in possession of the facts of this case would find it difficult to trust a professional who behaved in this way. The public would rightly be concerned at the misconduct and lack of integrity in this case. Public confidence would be undermined if a finding of impairment of fitness to practise were not made in this case; when viewed in the context of a practitioner who has been convicted of a serious offence showing limited reflection and insight into the impact of her conviction and in her subsequent failure to be open and honest with her regulatory body.

62. Accordingly, due to the need to uphold proper professional standards, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired under the public component.

Decision on Sanction
63. The Panel considered the submissions made by Mr Foxsmith and Dr Graydon and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

64. In accordance with the Legal Assessor’s advice the Panel has considered the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which states that any sanction must be proportionate, is not intended to be punitive and should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public, to protect the reputation of the profession, maintain confidence in the regulatory system and declare and uphold proper professional standards.

65. The Panel’s primary function at this stage is to protect the public, while deciding what, if any, sanction is proportionate, taking into account the wider public interest and the interests of the Registrant. The Panel should consider the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. The final sanction reached should be proportionate, and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public. All sanctions are available to the Panel.

66. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• There was dishonesty by the Registrant on several separate occasions.

• The Panel has found there was serious misconduct.

• There was a criminal conviction.

• The Registrant’s insight is limited as to her misconduct.

• She has failed to fully acknowledge her wrongdoing.

• The Registrant has continued to seek to minimise her behaviour.

67. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

• The Registrant has complied with the criminal sentence.

• There have been no previous or subsequent regulatory or disciplinary matters.

• There is no lack of competence.

• She pleaded guilty to the criminal offence.

• Her previous good character and positive testimonials from her current workplace.

• The Registrant made a declaration on her renewal form thereby prompting a self-referral to the HCPC.

68. The Sanctions Policy states:

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

• Short-term suspensions can also be appropriate in cases where there is no ongoing risk of harm, but where further action is required in order to maintain public confidence in our professions.

69. The Panel finds that the Registrant has not recognised her failings. There has been no genuine insight, remorse or apology. She has not reflected on the specific incidents and her main concern has been to divert blame to others.

70. Due to the serious nature of the conviction and the misconduct including dishonesty in this case, taking no further action or mediation is not in accordance with the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

71. The Panel went on to consider whether to impose a Caution Order. This would not be in accordance with the HCPC Sanctions Policy and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify a departure from it. A Caution Order would be insufficient to mark the significance of the Panel’s findings. It would fail to deter other practitioners from behaving in this way. A Caution Order would not uphold the wider public interest. The Registrant’s misconduct including dishonesty was not an isolated incident and there is a lack of insight and remediation.

72. The Panel next considered whether it could impose Conditions of Practice on the Registrant however it was unable to formulate realistic workable and practicable conditions of practice. The relevant misconduct arose from attitudinal problems and lack of insight rather than clinical issues, and conditions of practice would therefore not be appropriate in this case.

73. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. This matter represents a serious breach of the standards of conduct performance and ethics in that there is both a conviction and the Panel has found dishonesty to the regulator on 3 separate dates. Although the Panel found that the Registrant has very limited insight currently, in light of the fact that the Registrant is so highly regarded by her colleagues and has an unblemished career to date, the Panel was of the view that it should provide the Registrant with a final chance to reflect upon the facts found proved in this hearing, work on her insight as to why this was found to be so serious and the impact that it has on the public, the profession and the regulator. In the judgement of the Panel a Suspension Order is appropriate to mark the severity of what has been found proved but it also provides the Registrant with the chance to develop her insight going forward. Accordingly, the Panel has decided to impose a 6-month Suspension Order.

74. The period of 6 months suspension is consistent with the Panel’s findings at the facts, grounds and impairment stages. All sanction options including striking-off will be available to the reviewing panel. The Panel today has concluded that a Suspension Order for 6 months is the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

75. This Order will be reviewed before it expires. Whilst it is not for this Panel in any way to seek to bind the discretion of any reviewing panel, it is suggested that such a panel might find it helpful for the Registrant to produce at least 14 days before the next hearing:

• Evidence of the further development of her insight through a reflective statement demonstrating she has taken on board the Panel’s findings, has reflected on them and remediated.

• Evidence that she has discussed this case with a peer level mentor to assist her to reflect upon the need for transparency in all future interactions with her regulator.

76. Having determined that a Suspension Order appeared to meet all the legitimate requirements of a sanction in this case and that it was proportionate in all the circumstances; the Panel then considered whether the case would more properly merit a Striking off Order under the Sanctions Policy. Given the current state of the Registrant’s insight, and the seriousness of the matters found proved, the Panel did consider whether to impose a Striking Off Order but it decided that as this is a sanction of last resort, it would be disproportionate at this stage.

77. A Striking Off Order would be unduly punitive despite the Registrant’s dishonesty and misconduct. The misconduct in this case was not sufficiently serious, persistent or reckless and the requirements of public protection and the wider public interest can be adequately served by a Suspension Order. The lack of insight is the major problem in this case. There is a lack of acceptance by the Registrant of what she has done and the effect of her dishonesty and misconduct. These failings can be remedied and the Registrant will have the opportunity to do so if she wishes to.

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the register entry of Miss Abigail St. John for a period of 6 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

Reasons for the making of an Interim Suspension Order:

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor to consider whether an interim order was necessary under Article 31, to protect the public or in the public interest or the Registrant’s own interest, because of the nature of the findings made in this case. The HCPC submitted that an interim order is necessary. The Panel is satisfied that it is appropriate to direct that the Registrant’s registration should be subject to Suspension on an interim basis, on the same terms as the substantive order set out above. This order is required for the protection of the public and is in the public interest. The Panel concluded that the appropriate length of the Interim Order is 18 months, as an Interim Order would continue to be required pending the resolution of an appeal, in the event of the Registrant giving notice of an appeal within 28 days.

History of Hearings for Abigail St. John