Mr Andrew P Friend

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that the email addressed to the Registrant’s email address held by the HCPC on 20 January 2023 constituted good service of the notice of hearing as it informed him of the date, time and manner in which the hearing was to be conducted, and was sent more than 28 days before the date of the hearing.
Proceeding in the Registrant’s absence
2. After the Panel decided that there had been good service of the notice of hearing, the Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The basis of this application was that the Registration had disengaged from the fitness to practise process and the public interest required the allegation to be decided.
3. The Panel reviewed the evidence provided to it concerning the contention that the Registrant had disengaged from the process. It found that he had for the following reasons:
⦁ When a request was made by the HCPC on 20 October 2021 that the Registrant sign a consent form permitting his GP to release information, the Registrant replied the same day. Included in his reply was the following, “I am sure that you appreciate that I did not request to continue my association with the HCPC and did not request to be kept on the register. To this end my personal health data is no longer relevant to the HCPC. I don’t see any point to me giving constant (sic) for the 3rd or 4th time ongoing over the last 2 years or so. I quit the Ambulance Service and my profession as a Paramedic as I no longer wish to be associated with the HCPC. I would politely request that the HCPC no longer contacts or harasses me any further.”
⦁ A bundle of documents demonstrating repeated efforts by the HCPC’s Solicitors from mid-February 2022 to communicate with the Registrant to provide him with an electronic copy of the hearing bundle. The Registrant did not respond to any of them.
⦁ On 12 September 2022 a letter sent by “signed for” post was returned unopened and marked, “Return to Sender NOT AT THIS ADDRESS”.
⦁ On 19 August 2022, a Scheduling Officer wrote an email to the Registrant and Ms TL, his union Representative, inviting contact with regard to the scheduling of a preliminary hearing. The Registrant did not respond to this email, but Ms TL replied stating, “I can inform you that the registrant has provided instructions that he does not wish to engage any further with the HCPC and as such I am no longer to be included as his representative can I request that I be removed from the case.”
⦁ The notice of hearing email sent on 20 January 2023 to which reference has already been made requested the Registrant to confirm by 3 February 2023 whether it was his intention to attend the hearing. He made no response to this request.
⦁ On 23 February 2023 the Hearings Officer assigned to this hearing sent an email to the Registrant introducing herself. She asked the Registrant if he would wish to have a test video call before the commencement of the hearing and also asked him if he had the hearing bundle. The Registrant did not respond to this email.
4. In considering whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel acknowledged that such a decision should not be taken lightly. However, in circumstances where there was no basis upon which the Panel could conclude that there was a likelihood of greater engagement by the Registrant in the future, the Panel concluded that the public interest required the allegation to be resolved without further delay. The Panel acknowledged that for the reasons stated, the Registrant had not availed himself of the opportunity of becoming aware of the evidence the HCPC proposed to adduce at the hearing. The two witnesses whom the HCPC wished to call as witnesses were available. Accordingly, the Panel directed that the hearing should proceed notwithstanding the absence of the Registrant.
Hearing to be conducted in private
5. As the allegation is one concerning the Registrant’s health and is being heard by the Health Committee, the Panel determined that it was appropriate to direct that the entirety of the hearing should be conducted in private. This direction was required to protect the Registrant’s private life.

Order:

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Andrew Friend for a period of 12 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, being otherwise in the public interest and being in the Registrant’s own interests. 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:
1. The Panel was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to consider the making of an interim order because the Registrant was informed that an application for an interim order might be made in the notice of hearing email sent on 20 January 2023. Accordingly, the Registrant had been afforded an opportunity of making representations on the issue of whether such an order should be made.
2. The Panel considered that it was appropriate to deal with this issue in the absence of the Registrant. There is necessarily a degree of urgency about such an application and there is no reason to suppose the Registrant would make any submissions on the issue were he to be given the opportunity of doing so.
3. The Panel approached its decision on whether an interim order should be made by accepting that the default position is that when a substantive sanction is imposed a Registrant’s ability to practise should remain unrestricted while their appeal rights remain outstanding.
4. However, in the present case the Panel has concluded that there is an absence of evidence that the medical condition found proved is being satisfactorily addressed, and without that evidence the Registrant would present an unacceptable risk to service users. This means that an interim order is necessary for protection of members of the public and is otherwise in the public interest.
5. The Panel considered whether conditions of practice imposed on an interim basis would provide an adequate degree of protection and sufficiently maintain public confidence while the Registrant’s appeal rights remain outstanding. However, having carefully considered the matter, the Panel concluded that interim conditions of practice are not appropriate for the same reasons already expressed by the Panel for rejecting substantive conditions of practice as a substantive sanction outcome.
6. The result of these findings is that the Panel concluded that an interim suspension order is the necessary and proportionate order to make.
7. It is appropriate for that interim order should be made for a period of 18 months. Such a period is appropriate because the interim order will automatically fall away if the initial 28 day period passes and the Registrant does not appeal, yet if he does appeal it could be 18 months before that appeal is finally determined.

History of Hearings for Mr Andrew P Friend