Susan Glaiser

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel has seen an unredacted letter dated 17 November 2022 which was sent by email to the Registrant’s registered email address. The letter gives notice of the date, time, and purpose of this hearing and that it will be conducted remotely. The Panel has seen an email of the same date from Microsoft Outlook confirming delivery to the Registrant’s email address. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that proper notice of these proceedings has been served on the Registrant.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
2. Ms Lykourgou applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She submitted that the Registrant has voluntarily absented herself from the hearing and has not sought an adjournment. Ms Lykourgou referred the Panel to an email received from the Registrant dated 6 March 2023 in which the Registrant indicated that she was unable to attend the hearing due to a medical appointment at 14:00 this afternoon. Ms Lykourgou submitted that the Registrant did not make an application in the email for the hearing to be adjourned either to a later date or until tomorrow (7 March 2023).

3. Ms Lykourgou told the Panel that the final hearing had originally been scheduled for a two-day hearing on 22 and 23 September 2022. On 16 September 2022, the Registrant had sent an email saying that she was unable to attend due to a funeral on 22 September 2022, and had also indicated that she had not realised that she would be required to attend each day of the hearing. The panel had decided not to proceed in the Registrant’s absence and so the hearing was adjourned to a new date.

4. Ms Lykourgou submitted that the Registrant was notified of today’s hearing on 17 November 2022. The Registrant had also been sent emails on 2, 9 and 16 November 2022, notifying her that the HCPC did not intend to call any witnesses at the final hearing but would be reading their statements. The Registrant was invited to indicate if she required any of the witnesses to attend. Ms Lykourgou told the Panel that there had been no recent engagement by the Registrant who did not respond to those emails. The only correspondence since November 2022 has been the email received today which was sent at 9.06 am, together with an attachment. The attachment was a letter dated 6 February 2023 which confirms that the Registrant has a medical appointment at 14:00 today. Ms Lykougou submitted that there appeared to be no reason why the Registrant had waited until today to inform the HCPTS that she was unable to attend. Ms Lykourgou reminded the Panel that registrants were under a duty to engage with their Regulator.

5. Ms Lykourgou submitted that it was in the public interest for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence as the allegations related to events in 2018.

6. The Panel received and accepted legal advice before considering whether to treat the Registrant’s email as an application to adjourn, or whether to proceed in her absence. The Panel has exercised particular care and caution in reaching its decision and has considered the various matters set out in the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Postponement and Adjournment of Proceedings” and “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

7. The Panel considers that the Registrant’s email sent at 09:06 this morning is not an application for an adjournment as the Registrant does not specifically ask for an adjournment and nor does she indicate that she will attend the remainder of the hearing or at a later date. The Panel notes that the Registrant was notified of her medical appointment for today in a letter dated 6 February 2023. Although this was addressed to the Registrant at a different address to her registered address, the Panel considers that she would have received the appointment letter some time prior to today. The Registrant does not indicate in her email that she has only just received it.

8. With the consent of Ms Lykourgou and the Legal Assessor, the Panel was informed after it had retired to consider the application, that the Registrant had sent a text response to a text message sent to her by the Hearings Officer inquiring whether she consented to the entire hearing proceeding in her absence or if she intended to attend the hearing at some point. The Registrant’s response was “I will not be able to attend”. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant has not asked for an adjournment. It is satisfied that the Registrant does not intend to attend on any day of this three-day hearing and so no useful purpose would be served by adjourning this hearing to a later date, as it is unlikely that the Registrant would attend.

9. The Panel accepts that there will be some disadvantage to the Registrant by not being present and participating in the hearing but considers that this is outweighed by the public interest in proceedings being heard when scheduled. The Panel will be careful to consider all matters which are in the Registrant’s favour throughout the proceedings.

10. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has made a deliberate decision not to attend the hearing or be represented at it. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily waived her right to be present.

11. The Panel is satisfied that there is a clear public interest in this case being concluded given that the matters which the Panel has to consider go back to 2018. The Panel considers that it is in the public interest for final hearings to proceed on the date on which they are listed to be heard.

12. In reaching its decision, the Panel has balanced fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the wider public interest. The Panel is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Hearsay
13. Ms Lykourgou applied for the witness statements of the three HCPC witnesses to be admitted as hearsay evidence. Ms Lykourgou submitted that it was fair to admit this evidence as it was highly relevant to the matters before the Panel in relation to Particulars 2 and 4. The Registrant has had the papers including the witness statements and their respective exhibits for some time now and has not objected to its admissibility. Ms Lykourgou told the Panel that the Registrant was notified on 2, 9 and 16 November 2022 that the HCPC intended to read the witness statements and that she has not raised any objections or required any of the witnesses to attend to give live evidence and be available for cross-examination.

14. The Panel has considered each of the witness statements with care and notes that the evidence covers explanations of the HCPC procedures for renewal of registration, the production of exhibits obtained from the HCPC’s database relating to the Registrant’s renewal applications, emails correspondence regarding a refund of the renewal registration fees, and information taken from the HCPC records regarding a previous fitness to practise hearing involving this Registrant. The Panel notes that the Registrant was sent the statements of two of the witnesses prior to the adjourned final hearing date on 22 and 23 September 2022 and that she has responded in detail to these in a document she prepared for that hearing dated 25 August 2022. The Panel also notes that the third witness statement is dated 21 September 2022. It considers that while the Registrant has not provided any written response to this statement, she has had every opportunity to do so since that time. The Panel also notes that even though the Registrant was asked on three occasions to confirm whether the HCPC could read the witness statements, or whether she required the witnesses to attend this hearing, she has not responded to these requests.

15. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice on the admission of hearsay evidence. It is aware that if this evidence is admitted as hearsay evidence, this would, in circumstances where the Registrant was present, deprive her of the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. This consideration does not arise in this case as the Registrant has voluntarily absented herself from the hearing.

16. The Panel accepts that Particular 4 is a serious allegation which has the potential to adversely impact on the Registrant’s career. The Panel is also mindful of its obligations to protect the public, serve the public interest and uphold professional standards.

17. The Panel notes that the Registrant has been on notice since November 2022 that the HCPC intends to read the witness statements rather than call the witnesses and that she was invited to indicate if she had any objections to that proposed course. The Registrant has not objected nor has she requested any of the witnesses to attend.

18. In the circumstances, the Panel has decided that it is fair to admit the statements of the three HCPC witnesses as hearsay evidence. In due course, when it has heard all the evidence in the case, the Panel will decide what weight to give to their evidence.

Background
19. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Operating Department Practitioner, having first registered on 25 September 2015. On 17 March 2020, the Registrant sent a self-referral form to the HCPC notifying them that she had been convicted of two criminal offences following an incident that had occurred on 10 March 2018. The Registrant initially engaged with the HCPC, provided an update and answered certain queries in an email dated 2 April 2020. She also consented to the HCPC obtaining a Health Reference Form from her General Practitioner (GP).

20. It is alleged that on 26 October 2018, the Registrant pleaded guilty and was convicted at Preston Crown Court of (i) on 10 March 2018, driving a motor vehicle whilst unfit to drive through drugs, contrary to section 4 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and (ii) on 10 March 2018, being in possession of a controlled drug of class B (namely ketamine), contrary to section 5 (1) and Schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Registrant was disqualified from driving for 15 months and fined a total of £800, a surcharge of £80, and £200 towards the costs of the prosecution. The fines and costs were to be paid by 21 December 2018.

21. On 20 August 2020, a panel of the Investigating Committee decided that there was a case for the Registrant to answer and referred an Allegation to this Committee. The Registrant was notified of this decision on 24 August 2020.

Decision on Facts
Evidence
22. The HCPC relied on the hearsay evidence of three witnesses, each of whom was employed by the HCPC. None of the witnesses was called to give live evidence. The HCPC also produced a bundle of documents for the hearing which totalled 204 pages of which some 150 pages are exhibits in the case. These exhibits include:
a. Certificate of Conviction from Preston Crown Court.
b. MG5 police report dated 10 March 2018 detailing the Registrant’s arrest on that day.
c. Emails between HCPC and the Registrant regarding her self-referral.
d. Emails between HCPC and the Registrant regarding the renewal of her registration and a potential refund of the renewal fee.
e. HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016)
f. Screenshots of the HCPC database showing the Registrant’s online renewal on 26 November 2018 and a renewal summary.

23. The Panel was provided with a 9-page document dated 25 August 2022 prepared by the Registrant for the original adjourned final hearing, together with a number of attachments, totalling 56 pages. These included:
a. Companies House document.
b. Testimonials.
c. Confirmation of employment outside of practice as an Operating Department Practitioner.
d. Emails regarding the cancellation of her HCPC registration and request for the repayment of the renewal fee.

24. The Panel has borne in mind throughout that the burden of proving the Allegation is on the HCPC and that to do so, there must be sufficient evidence to satisfy the civil standard of proof. The Panel has considered each of the particulars and sub-particulars of the Allegation separately.

NB
25. The Panel received in evidence a signed witness statement from NB who is employed by the HCPC as a Registrations Manager. NB is responsible for the Continuing Professional Development progress and for managing a team of Registration Advisers and Registrant Team Leader.

26. In her statement, NB told the Panel that the Registrant was subject to a previous fitness to practice hearing which concluded in July 2019. She was found to have taken ketamine in a Debenhams Department Store in December 2017. The panel found her fitness to practise to be impaired on the public component and she was made the subject of a 2-year Caution Order.

27. NB also told the Panel that she has checked the HCPC records and can find no contact from the Registrant informing the HCPC of the convictions at Preston Crown Court on 26 October 2018, prior to March 2020.

28. NB told the Panel that the Registrant had renewed her registration on 26 November 2018 via the HCPC online portal. NB explained that where a registrant declares online that there has been a change in their character, e.g., by having received a criminal conviction, they are not able to complete the renewal of their registration via the online portal.

29. NB confirmed that the Registrant was required to declare to the HCPC both of the convictions referred to in Particular 1.

HJK
30. The Panel received in evidence a signed witness statement from HJK who is employed by the HCPC as a Case Manager, a role she has been in since April 2018. HJK is responsible for managing and progressing a caseload of fitness to practise cases.

31. In her witness statement, HJK set out Standard 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) which states:
9.5 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;
32. HJK stated that there is no timetable set in Standard 9.5 other than a registrant is required to inform the HCPC of a conviction “as soon as possible”.

33. HJK stated that, having checked the HCPC database, she could confirm that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of her convictions received on 26 October 2018 until her email to the Registrations Department dated 17 March 2020. HJK also stated that between her arrest on 10 March 2018 and conviction on 26 October 2018, the Registrant had been in contact with the HCPC about a previous fitness to practise matter in respect of which she was subject to an Interim Conditions of Practice Order. HJK stated that the Registrant had attended an interim order review hearing on 30 October 2018, 4 days after her conviction at Preston Crown Court on 26 October 2018 and had made no mention of her convictions at that hearing.

MR
34. MR has been employed by the HCPC as a Registrations Manager since January 2019. His role includes responsibility for managing several electronic processes, managing a team of registration managers, and responding to official complaints.

35. In his statement, MR explained that until 20 October 2020, registrants who completed their renewal applications online, were required to make several declarations by ticking the relevant boxes to show that they agreed with those declarations. MR stated that where a registrant does not agree to make all the declarations (i.e., they do not tick all the boxes), they are unable to complete their renewal application online. In these circumstances, the registrant would be told to make a written renewal application. One of the declarations relates to a registrant’s good character and requires a registrant to confirm that there has been no change since their last renewal, such as a criminal conviction.
36. MR stated that the HCPC does not hold any paper renewal form for the Registrant’s renewal cycle in 2018. MR also stated that in November 2018, the HCPC did not retain records of the online declarations made by registrants renewing their registration online.

37. MR produced a screenshot from the HCPC database which shows “Notes and Activities” relating to the Registrant from 1 September 2018 to 26 November 2018. The document shows that on 1 and 4 September 2018, registration renewal notices were sent to her. On 26 November 2018, there are three entries: a change of email address, a change of address and a “Completion of renewal notification email”. MR stated that it would have been the Registrant who notified the HCPC of changes to her email address and her address. He also stated that a “Completion of renewal notification email” is only sent to registrants who have completed their renewals online and made the relevant fee payment. A “Completion of renewal notification email” would not be sent to a registrant who had lapsed renewing their registration while there was an open fitness to practise case, as in that situation none of the required declarations or payment would have been made.

38. MR referred to the Registrant being subject to an open fitness to practise case in November 2018 when her registration was renewed. MR stated that where there is an open fitness to practise case a registrant cannot lapse from the Register for any reason, including renewal. MR stated that as a “Completion of renewal notification email” was sent to the Registrant on 26 November 2018 this indicated that she had renewed her registration and paid the relevant fee on that date using the online portal.

39. MR produced a screenshot of the various declarations contained in the online renewal form. This shows under the heading “Professional declaration” that one of the declarations is:
“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)".

40. MR stated that this declaration must have been made by the Registrant ticking the relevant box for her to have successfully completed her renewal online and for the “Completion of renewal notification email” to have been sent her.

41. MR referred to email correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC in February 2019 in which the Registrant was seeking a return of part of her renewal registration fee paid in November 2018 for the professional years 2018/19 and 2019/20. MR stated that these emails confirmed that it was the Registrant who had paid those renewal fees when she had completed her online renewal on 26 November 2018.

The Registrant
42. Although the Registrant is not present and has therefore not given evidence, the Panel has had regard to the contents of her emails dated 17 March 2020, 2 April 2020 and her written submissions dated 25 August 2022. In these documents, the Registrant effectively admits Particular 1(a) and 1(b), and Particular 2. The only issue that arises in the Registrant’s documents relates to the allegation of dishonesty in Particular 4.

43. The Panel has seen from the Registrant’s submissions dated 25 August 2022, that she has provided somewhat contradictory accounts of renewing her registration in November 2018. She first states that this was actioned without her consent or knowledge, and she refers to notifying the HCPC in February 2019 that she no longer wished to practise as an Operating Department Practitioner, and she wanted a voluntary removal from the Register and a refund of her renewal fee. The Registrant produced two emails in her bundle to confirm this. These are dated 16 and 18 February 2019. The Registrant then stated in her written submissions that, “It was a little over two months after renewing my registration that I had contacted to confirm cancellation (26 Nov 18 to 16 Feb 19)”.

44. The Registrant also stated in the same document when referring to the renewal on 26 November 2018 that, “I was advised by the HCPC that renewal of my registration was mandatory and it was inferred by my Case Manager that it would reflect badly on me during the investigation if I did not renew”. The Panel has concluded that this indicates that the Registrant did in fact renew her registration online and pay the relevant fees on 26 November 2018.

45. The Registrant’s explanation for not informing the HCPC of her convictions before 17 March 2020, was summarised by her in her emails in 2020, and in her written submissions dated 25 August 2022, where she states:
“I considered myself a non-registrant as I had confirmed cancellation of my registration and was no longer practising when the conviction was received.
I did not attempt to continue practising and have not returned to practice since, despite all conditions of practice and cautions ending some time ago.
As I was no longer practicing, I believed this change of circumstances did not affect my conduct or competence as I was no longer working in the clinical environment.
I informed the HCPC of the relevant change of circumstances as soon as possible which was to confirm I had left practice - 2 months later whilst dealing with health issues and adjusting to a new role.
I had made all the necessary steps to leave practice permanently in October before the conviction date, I felt it wasn’t relevant to declare a change of circumstances for a role I wasn’t doing, and as a part of registration requirements I had removed myself from.
As the continuation of my registration was enforced by the HCPC, it does not consider that my request to cancel was my confirmation that I was no longer in adherence with registration requirements.
I had nothing to gain from withholding the information of my conviction from the HCPC. Branding these actions as dishonest implies that I purposely did this as it would benefit me somehow. What was there to gain?
If I had withheld the information in order to continue practising, that would have been dishonest.
But instead, I voluntarily provided a detailed submission relating to my change of circumstances to the HCPC at the start of the Pandemic in order to ensure I followed HCPC procedures if I was ever to return to practice and support my colleagues.
If my intentions were dishonest - why did I not return to practise without informing the HCPC of the conviction?. My actions do not coincide with the dishonest narrative. I had simply moved on with my career and life and believed the conviction was irrelevant as at the time, I believed I would never return”. [sic]

46. The Registrant stated that she was disclosing her convictions in March 2020 as she was considering at that time, returning to practice as an Operating Department Practitioner to assist during the Pandemic and because she knew that she must disclose her convictions before she could resume her practice. The Panel notes that in neither the long email dated 17 March 2020 nor in the email dated 2 April 2020 is there any reference by the Registrant to her wanting to resume her practice in order to assist with the Pandemic.

47. Attached to the Registrant’s written submissions were some testimonials. As some were clearly obtained for the previous fitness to practise hearing and are dated in 2018 before the HCPC began its investigation into this Allegation, the Panel has not relied on any of the testimonials in relation to the fact-finding stage of these proceedings.
The HCPC witnesses

48. The Panel has considered with care the hearsay evidence of the HCPC’s three witnesses. Where the evidence relates to the HCPC’s procedures in relation to renewal of registration, the Panel has accepted this evidence. It has also accepted the documentary evidence produced in exhibits by these witnesses, such as screenshots from the HCPC database and email correspondence. The Panel has decided that it can accept the evidence of these witnesses as being truthful and reliable. It has not been undermined by any evidence from the Registrant or in her written submissions.

Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) - Found Proved
49. The Panel has seen a Memorandum of Conviction from Preston Crown Court for 26 October 2018. This shows that the Registrant appeared at Court on that day and pleaded guilty to the two offences set out in Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) and was sentenced. The Panel has been advised that it can rely on the Memorandum of Conviction as proof that the Registrant was convicted of the two offences set out in Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) of the Allegation. The Panel notes that in her self-referral on 17 March 2020, the Registrant informed the HCPC of the two convictions set out in Particulars 1(a) and 1(b).

50. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied, based on the Memorandum of Conviction that the Registrant was convicted of the two offences set out in Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) and finds each of these sub-particulars of Particular 1 proved.

Particular 2 - Found Proved
51. The Panel has seen a copy of an email sent by the Registrant to the HCPC dated 17 March 2020 in which she discloses that she was convicted of the two offences set out in Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) on 26 October 2018 at Preston Crown Court. The Panel notes that the Registrant’s notification is just under 18 months after the date of her convictions. The Panel can see from the Registrant’s explanation as set out in that email, in her email dated 2 April 2018 and in her written submissions dated 25 August 2018, that the Registrant is not suggesting that she informed the HCPC of her convictions on any date earlier than the 17 March 2020. The Registrant’s emails and written submissions set out her explanation for not having notified the HCPC of her convictions at an earlier date.

52. The Panel accepts the evidence of NB, HJK and MR that there is no record showing that the Registrant notified the HCPC of her convictions before 17 March 2020. There is no evidence of any paper renewal by the Registrant which she would have been required to complete had she notified the HCPC of the convictions when she renewed her registration in November 2018. The evidence shows that the Registrant renewed her registration and paid for two professional years by using the online portal on 26 November 2018. The Panel has seen a screenshot of the “Notes and Activities” relating to her registration dated 26 November 2018 which shows that she was sent a “Completion of renewal notification email” on that date. This indicates that the Registrant must have declared that there had been no change in her good character. This would have been incorrect as on 26 October 2018 she had been convicted of two notifiable criminal offences. The Panel has also seen emails in February 2019 (both those produced by the HCPC and those produced by the Registrant) in which it is clear that the Registrant is seeking a return of the renewal registration fee that she has paid. As there is no documentation of a paper renewal, the Registrant must have paid the relevant fee when she renewed her registration online and to do that she must have made the incorrect declaration about her good character.

53. The Panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of the convictions in Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) until 17 March 2020 and accordingly, finds Particular 2 proved.

Particular 4 - Found Proved (in relation to Particular 2)
54. The Panel has considered the oral submissions of Ms Lykourgou and the written submissions of the Registrant regarding the allegation of dishonesty. It has received and accepted legal advice as to how it should approach the issue of dishonesty. The Panel has considered Particular 4 and applied the test for dishonesty as set out in the case of Ivey v. Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 (at para 74) [the Ivey test]. In applying the Ivey test, the Panel has first decided the Registrant's knowledge or belief as to the factual circumstances of her conduct as found in Particular 2 of the Allegation. The Panel understands that the Registrant’s belief does not have to be reasonable, so long as it is genuinely held. The Panel has then considered whether, based on the factual circumstances as it has found the Registrant believed them to be, her conduct was dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. The Panel understands there is no requirement that the Registrant must appreciate that what she has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

55. In relation to Particular 2 the Panel finds that the factual circumstances to be these:
a. That the Registrant knew she was subject to fitness to practise proceedings for taking ketamine at a Debenhams Store in December 2017 and she knew that she was subject to interim orders which were in place during 2018 and until the final hearing in July 2019.
b. That the Registrant was practising as an Operating Department Practitioner during 2018 under an Interim Conditions of Practice Order which she was finding difficult for reasons she outlined in her email dated 17 March 2020.
c. That the Registrant knew she had been arrested on 10 March 2018 and subsequently charged with two criminal offences, both of which related to the drug ketamine.
d. That the Registrant knew when she was convicted at Preston Crown Court on 26 October 2018 that those convictions related to the drug ketamine.
e. That on 16 October 2018, shortly before she was due to appear at Preston Crown Court and plead guilty to the offences set out in Particulars 1(a) and 1(b), the Registrant dissolved a company called SC Glaiser 8324 Ltd through which she had been operating as an agency Operating Department Practitioner. The Registrant stated that she taken the step to dissolve her company having decided to cease practising as an Operating Department Practitioner.
f. That on or about 30 October 2018 there was an interim order review hearing at which no mention was made of the Registrant’s convictions either by her attending in person or in written submissions despite those convictions involving driving whilst under the influence of drugs and possession of ketamine, which was the same drug involve in those proceedings.
g. That on 26 November 2018, the Registrant had renewed her registration using the online portal for two professional years (2018/19 and 2019/20) and that in doing so, she had made the various declarations including confirming that there had been no change in her good character which she knew was untrue given the convictions at Preston Crown Court a month earlier.
h. That it was February 2019 when the Registrant emailed the HCPC indicating that she no longer intended to practise as an Operating Department Practitioner, wanted to be removed from the Register and asked for the return of part of her renewal fee.
i. That at all times, the Registrant was aware of the requirement set out in the HCPC’s Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, Standard 9.5, to inform the HCPC of any conviction, as is clear from her written submissions where she explained why she had not informed the HCPC of her convictions earlier than 17 March 2020.

56. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant knew at all times that she was required to inform the HCPC of any convictions and that she should do this “as soon as possible”. The Panel has also concluded that the Registrant made a conscious decision not to tell HCPC when it must have been obvious to her that the convictions would be relevant not only to her renewal application in November 2018, but also to the ongoing fitness to practise proceedings which involved an allegation relating to the same drug, ketamine. The Panel can accept that the Registrant may have decided at around the time of her convictions that she no longer wished to practise and wanted to be removed from the Register. The Panel has seen the emails in February 2019 to this effect. The Panel can also accept that the Registrant was finding it difficult to work as an agency Operating Department Practitioner within the interim conditions imposed on her practice. The Panel can see from the evidence that the Registrant may have been somewhat distracted at the time by a suspected medical condition. However, the Panel considers that the potential relevance of the convictions (which involved the same drug which the HCPC was already investigating and in respect of which there was an interim order), must have been obvious to the Registrant.

57. The Panel notes that the Registrant’s initial explanation given in her email of 17 March 2020 for not having informed the HCPC of her convictions until then is somewhat different to the explanation she set out in her written submissions on 25 August 2022 when she said she wished to return to practice so that she could assist during the Pandemic. There was no mention of the Pandemic in the email of 17 March 2020 and the Registrant at that time was expressing a desire to return to her practice a role in which she had “previously thrived and excelled in” and about which she was “passionate”.

58. The Panel rejects the Registrant’s suggestion that there was no benefit to her in not telling the HCPC of the convictions as she had considered them to be irrelevant, having moved on with her life at that time with no intention of returning to the profession. The Panel considers that it must have been obvious to her that the HCPC would be very concerned to hear that she had been convicted of offences involving the same drug that they were already investigating and that this might impact on the outcome of those proceedings.

59. In these circumstances, and applying the Ivey test, the Panel has concluded that it is more likely than not that the Registrant was dishonest when she did not inform the HCPC of her convictions until 17 March 2020, and it is satisfied that an ordinary, decent person would judge the Registrant’s conduct to be dishonest.

Decision on Grounds
60. In reaching its decision on the statutory grounds of conviction and misconduct, the Panel has taken account of the submissions of both parties. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice.

Submissions
61. Ms Lykourgou submitted that in the event Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) were found proved, the statutory ground of conviction would also be proved. Ms Lykourgou also submitted that in the event Particulars 2 and 4 are found proved that these findings of fact taken individually or together, constitute a serious falling short of what would be proper in the circumstances. She submitted that it was clear the Registrant’s behaviour was a serious departure from the standards expected of a professional practitioner.

62. Ms Lykourgou submitted that although the Registrant had been in regular contact with the HCPC due to her earlier fitness to practise proceedings both before and after her convictions on 26 October 2018, including an interim review hearing on 30 October 2018 which was only 4 days after her appearance at Preston Crown Court, she had not mentioned the convictions then. Ms Lykourgou submitted that the Registrant was in breach of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (Standard 9.5) in not disclosing her convictions to the HCPC “as soon as possible”. Ms Lykourgou also submitted that the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 2 was also a breach of Standard 9.1 as the Registrant’s conduct did not justify the public’s trust and confidence in her and her profession.

63. In relation to the finding of dishonesty, Ms Lykourgou submitted that a registered Operating Department Practitioner is expected to act and adhere to the higher standards expected of them by the HCPC and the public and is also expected to be honest and trustworthy. The Registrant’s dishonest conduct was in breach of this expectation. She submitted that an ordinary intelligent citizen would find a professional who was found to have been dishonest, to be morally blameworthy.

64. The Registrant did not make any specific submissions on misconduct in her document dated 25 August 2022.

Decision on Conviction
65. In light of the Panel’s findings of fact in relation to Particulars 1(a) and 1(b), the Panel finds the statutory ground of conviction in this case.

Decision on Misconduct
66. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particulars 2 and 4 of the Allegation is a serious departure from the standards to be expected of an Operating Department Practitioner and amounts to misconduct.

67. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s dishonesty in relation to not informing the HCPC of her convictions until 17 March 2020 had continued over a period of some 18 months. During this time, she had ample opportunity to notify the HCPC of the convictions. The Registrant was involved in ongoing fitness to practise hearings in relation to another matter which did not conclude until July 2019 and, from the time of her convictions on 26 October 2018 and the conclusion of the final hearing, she was subject to an Interim Order which would have been reviewed at three monthly intervals.
68. The public expects that Operating Department Practitioners and other health professionals are honest and trustworthy in both their personal and professional behaviour. Operating Department Practitioners have access to a range of drugs, and they treat members of the public when they are at their most vulnerable. The importance of honesty and integrity in an Operating Department Practitioner cannot be underestimated. The Panel has concluded that fellow practitioners and the wider public would consider the Registrant’s dishonest conduct to have fallen seriously short of what would have been proper in the circumstances and amounts to misconduct.

69. The Panel takes the view that the Registrant’s conduct has the potential to impact adversely on the wider public interest in upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour and maintaining public confidence in the Operating Department Practitioner profession.

HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016)
70. In reaching its decision on misconduct the Panel has also had in mind the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) and has concluded that the following standards are engaged and have been breached:
Standard 9 Be honest and trustworthy
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.
Important information about your conduct and competence
9.5 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;

71. The Panel considers that the public expects Operating Department Practitioners and other health professionals to be trustworthy in their personal and professional behaviour. The Registrant did not make sure that her conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in her or in her profession when she dishonestly decided not to inform the HCPC of her criminal convictions until some 18 months later.

72. Accordingly, the Panel finds misconduct in this case.

Decision on Impairment
Submissions
73. Ms Lykourgou submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public components.

74. In relation to the personal component, Ms Lykourgou submitted that there was no evidence that the Registrant has developed insight into or has reflected on her convictions or her misconduct. Ms Lykougou submitted that the Registrant has not engaged with these proceedings. In relation to any remedial steps taken by the Registrant, Ms Lykourgou acknowledged that the Registrant has produced forensic evidence relating to periodic testing of hair samples which show that she has not been taking ketamine. Ms Lykourgou confirmed that there have been no further regulatory proceedings involving the Registrant since March 2020. She submitted that there was no other evidence of remediation.

75. In relation to the public component, Ms Lykourgou submitted that public confidence in the Operating Department Practitioner profession and the HCPC as the regulatory body would be significantly undermined if there is no finding of impairment in this case. She submitted that by her convictions and her misconduct, the Registrant had brought the Operating Department Practitioner profession into disrepute. The Registrant had shown a serious lapse in judgement and a disregard for the HCPC Standards (9.1 and 9.5). She also submitted that a finding of impairment was necessary in this case in order to uphold standards of behaviour and conduct in the profession.

Decision
76. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel has taken account of Ms Lykourgou’s submissions. The Panel has also considered the Registrant’s emails dated 17 March 2020 and 2 April 2020 and her written submissions dated 25 August 2020 together with relevant testimonials. It has received and accepted legal advice. The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of this hearing is not to punish the Registrant for past misdoings but to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise.

Personal component
77. The Panel first considered the personal component in relation to the convictions. It is satisfied that although the Registrant’s convictions are serious, they are capable of being remedied. The Panel notes that the convictions were almost five years ago and relate to a period when the Registrant was going through a particularly difficult time in her personal life and also had health concerns. The convictions related to the Registrant’s use of ketamine on 10 March 2018. The Panel also notes that since then the Registrant has produced evidence of tests on samples of her hair taken in 2018, 2019 and 2020 which show that she was not taking any ketamine at that time. While the Panel does not have any up-to-date evidence to confirm that the Registrant has not taken any ketamine since then, it has no reason to doubt that the Registrant has turned her life around since 2018 and is now in a much better place. The Panel notes that the Registrant has been successfully employed outside of her profession during this period. The Panel has seen from the Registrant’s emails in 2020 and her written submissions in August 2022, that she regrets the events that led to her convictions. She has expressed being embarrassed by them.

78. The Panel notes that the convictions did not arise out of events in the workplace and has concluded that the events on 10 March 2018 did not put any service users at risk of harm. The Panel has also concluded that, the Registrant has shown insight, regret and taken appropriate remedial steps in relation to her convictions. The Panel judges that the risk of her repeating these convictions is low. In these circumstances, the Panel has decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired on the personal component in relation to her convictions.

79. The Panel then considered the personal component in relation to the misconduct. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s misconduct is capable of being remedied. It accepts that it is more difficult for a registrant to demonstrate that they have remedied dishonest conduct. However, the Panel has seen no evidence from the Registrant that she has any insight into her misconduct or how this might impact on service users, fellow practitioners or the wider public interest. She has not expressed any remorse and has not reflected on her conduct in any meaningful way. The Panel has no evidence that the Registrant has taken any steps to remedy her misconduct. The Registrant has failed to understand that the obligation to disclose convictions to the HCPC applies to both practising and non-practising registrants. She has also failed to understand that it is not for a registrant to decide when they have to disclose convictions to the regulator. The Registrant still seems to be suggesting that there is a distinction between a registrant who is practising and a registrant who no longer intends to practice but who is still on the Register. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded that there is a real risk that the Registrant will repeat her misconduct.

80. The Panel therefore finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component in relation to her misconduct.

Public component
81. In relation to the public component, the Panel has considered very carefully whether given the convictions and the misconduct found in this case, public confidence in the Operating Department Practitioner profession and its regulatory body would be significantly undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel has also considered whether it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in that profession if it did not find impairment in this case.

82. The Panel has no doubt that the Registrant’s convictions and her misconduct has brought the Operating Department Practitioner profession into disrepute. The public is entitled to rely on registered professionals to conduct themselves appropriately not only when acting in the course of their profession, but also in their personal lives. When they do not, this inevitably brings the profession into disrepute. The Panel is also satisfied that in acting as she did, the Registrant breached fundamental tenets of her profession, namely that a registered professional must make sure that their professional behaviour justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession. The Panel has concluded that there remains a risk that the Registrant will, in future bring her profession into disrepute or breach fundamental tenets of that profession.

83. In relation to the convictions, the Panel notes that although the convictions occurred five years ago in 2018, the delay in these proceedings was as a direct result of the Registrant’s actions in not disclosing them to the HCPC until March 2020. The Panel notes that it is unlikely that the HCPC would have found out about the convictions had the Registrant not disclosed them. The convictions relate to the misuse and possession of a Class B drug, ketamine. The Registrant must have known that she could not use or possess ketamine. She had researched the use of ketamine as a medical treatment and had effectively self-medicated with it. The Panel has concluded that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be shocked if there was no finding of impairment where a health professional had been convicted of driving whilst unfit through drugs and possession of ketamine.

84. The Panel is satisfied that public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be significantly undermined if there is no finding of impairment in relation to the convictions in this case. The Panel is also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Operating Department Practitioner profession if it did not find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by her convictions. It considers that if there is no finding of impairment, it would send out the wrong message, namely that convictions of this nature, do not have any regulatory consequences.

85. In relation to the misconduct, the Panel considers that the Operating Department Practitioner profession is one that is built on trust and expertise. As regulator, the HCPC requires anyone who wants to work as an Operating Department Practitioner to register. A regulator needs to be able to rely on registrants to be honest and abide by its codes and rules. In this way, a regulator is able to decide if a registrant is suitable to practise in their chosen field so as not to put service users at risk of harm. It is not for a registrant to decide which of the rules they will comply with. Whether or not they are practising, a registrant is still bound by their obligations to their regulator.

86. The Registrant was first registered with the HCPC in 2015 and so would have renewed her registration on a number of occasions before doing so on 26 November 2018. She would have known that she was required to make a declaration about her good character. The Panel has concluded that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned if there is no finding of impairment in this case where the Registrant has been found to have dishonestly and deliberately decided not to inform her regulator of criminal convictions until some 18 months after they had occurred, and only then at a time when she wished to resume her practise.

87. The Panel is satisfied that public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be significantly undermined if there is no finding of impairment in relation to the misconduct in this case. The Panel is also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Operating Department Practitioner profession if it did not find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by her misconduct. It considers that if there is no finding of impairment, it would send out the wrong message, namely that misconduct of this nature, does not have any regulatory consequences.

88. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct on the public component.

89. Accordingly, the Panel finds, on both the personal (misconduct only) and public component grounds, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired and the Allegation is well founded.

Decision on Sanction
90. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction the Panel was referred to, and has taken account of, the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice. The Panel is aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposes is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have that effect, but it is to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the Operating Department Practitioner profession and to uphold its standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel has also had in mind that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the convictions and the misconduct involved.

Submissions
91. Ms Lykourgou set out the relevant principles regarding the imposition of a sanction but, as is the HCPC’s usual approach at the sanction stage, did not advance any particular sanction.

Decision
92. The Panel has considered mitigating and aggravating factors both in relation to her convictions and her misconduct. The Panel finds the following to be mitigating factors:
- the Registrant entered guilty pleas to the two offences before Preston Crown Court and effectively admitted these in this hearing;
- the Registrant has insight into her convictions and has shown appropriate remorse;
- the Registrant has remediated her conviction by providing proof that over a period of time, she has not taken ketamine.

93. The Panel has considered whether there was anything in the documents regarding the Registrant’s health and private life at the relevant time (March 2018 to 2020) which might provide any personal mitigation in this case. The Panel considers that there are relevant matters of personal mitigation and has decided that as these relate to the Registrant’s private life and her health that it is appropriate that any detailed reference to these in this determination should be in private. In reaching that decision the Panel has had in mind the HCPTS Practice Note “Conducting hearings in private”.

94. The Panel notes that at the time of the Registrant’s convictions she was experiencing considerable difficulties in her personal life. It would appear that her arrest on that day may have contributed to the Registrant’s decision to take action to stop using ketamine and to turn her life around. The Panel considers that another factor which probably contributed to the Registrant turning her life around at that time was the ongoing fitness to practise proceedings which concluded in July 2019. The Panel considers that the Registrant’s health and very difficult personal life at the time of her convictions is personal mitigation which it can consider when imposing a sanction in this case.

95. The Panel considers the following to be aggravating factors:
- that these proceedings are the second time the Registrant’s fitness to practise has been found to be impaired in relation to ketamine;
- that the Registrant has shown no insight, remorse or any reflection on the matters found to amount to misconduct;
- that the Registrant has not taken any steps to remediate her misconduct;
- that the misconduct arose in a work-related context and involved the Registrant’s regulator.

96. The Panel considers the dishonesty in this case to be an “isolated” incident of dishonesty by omission. Although the dishonesty by omission persisted over a period of some 18 months, it was the Registrant herself who eventually informed the HCPC of those convictions. The Panel notes that the Registrant has not admitted her dishonesty. The Panel has concluded that while the Registrant’s dishonest misconduct is not at the highest end of the scale of dishonest conduct, it is not at the lowest end of that scale, largely because it involved the Registrant deliberately and dishonestly omitting to tell her regulator of her convictions at a time when there may have been some benefit to her in relation to the other fitness to practise proceedings.

97. The Panel has considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. It does not consider that this is a suitable case for mediation. It has also decided that to take no action or impose a Caution Order in this case would not be appropriate or proportionate. The Registrant was convicted of two offences which involved the drug ketamine. She then took 18 months to inform the HCPC of her convictions, conduct the Panel has found to have been dishonest. The Panel does not consider that either the convictions or the misconduct could be described as ‘relatively minor in nature’. The Panel is not able to conclude that there is a low risk of repetition because although the Registrant has insight into her convictions, she has not yet shown insight into the causes of her misconduct or the impact of it on her profession and the wider public. The Panel is satisfied that to ensure public confidence in the profession is not undermined, it must consider a more severe sanction.

98. The Panel then considered a Conditions of Practice Order and in particular the matters set out in paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy which states:
“A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
• the registrant has insight;
• the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
• there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met;
• the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice”.

99. The Panel has also had in mind paragraphs 107 and 108, which state:
107 “Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious and persistent failings”.

108 “Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving: dishonesty”.

100. The Panel has considered paragraph 109 which states in relation to serious cases and the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order:
“However, it should only do so when it is satisfied that the registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation and unlikely to be repeated.”

101. The Panel has found that the Registrant’s convictions are capable of being remedied and that the Registrant has remedied them. She has shown appropriate insight into those convictions, and she has expressed her remorse. The Panel has concluded in relation to the convictions that the risk of repetition is low. However, the Panel does not regard the convictions as being “minor”.

102. In relation to the Registrant’s misconduct, the Panel has found that this is capable of being remedied although it acknowledges this will be difficult as it involves dishonest conduct. The Panel does not consider that the Registrant’s conduct was “minor” or “unlikely to be repeated”. The Panel has found that the Registrant has yet to show insight into her misconduct. There remains therefore, a risk that she will repeat her misconduct. The Panel notes that the HCPC has confirmed that there have been no further regulatory issues with the Registrant since her referral in March 2020.

103. The Panel has also concluded that it is not possible to devise appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions which would address the serious concerns regarding the Registrant’s dishonest conduct in this case. The Panel also takes the view that given the nature and gravity of both the convictions and the misconduct, the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order would undermine public confidence in the Operating Department Practitioner profession and in the regulatory process.

104. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. It has had in mind the following guidance from the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy:
“121 A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated;
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

105. The Panel has already found that the Registrant’s convictions and her misconduct “represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics”. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has insight into her convictions and that these are unlikely to be repeated. The Panel has considered very carefully whether the Registrant’s lack of insight into her misconduct and the level of the risk of repetition of the misconduct rules this sanction out. The Panel has already expressed its view that the misconduct is capable of being remedied. The Panel has considered whether there is evidence that this Registrant is capable of remedying her misconduct.

106. The Panel has concluded that there is nothing to suggest that the Registrant is either unwilling or incapable of remedying her misconduct. The Panel considers that the Registrant is capable of developing proper insight, as is evidenced in relation to her convictions. The Registrant has also shown that she capable of proper reflection. Her explanation and understanding as to the cause of her convictions is evidence of this. The Panel notes that in remedying her convictions, the Registrant has managed to be drug free and has completely turned her life around so that she is now in a much better place than she was in 2018. The Panel considers that if the Registrant is capable of taking those difficult remedial steps, she should be capable of remedying her misconduct. She is clearly someone who was good at her job as an Operating Department Practitioner, as is evidenced by the testimonials the Panel has seen.

107. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded that a Suspension Order for 12 months is the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Panel considers that the period of 12 months will allow the Registrant sufficient time in which to properly reflect on her misconduct and achieve proper insight. The Panel is satisfied that a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months would adequately protect the public from the risk of repetition in this case. The Panel is also satisfied that such an Order would be sufficient to protect public confidence in the Operating Department Practitioner profession and its regulatory body, while at the same time sending out a clear message to the profession that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

108. Finally, the Panel has considered whether an order striking the Registrant off the Register would be appropriate and proportionate in this case. It has borne in mind in paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Police which states that such a sanction is one of “last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving…. e.g., dishonesty”.

109. The Panel has had in mind paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy:
“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• Lacks insight;
• Continues to repeat the misconduct …
• Is unwilling to resolve matters.

110. The Panel does not consider that this is a case where a sanction of “last resort” is required. This is not a registrant who is unwilling to resolve matters, or incapable of doing so. The Registrant has remedied her convictions and the Panel considers that she is capable of remedying her misconduct. The Registrant has not continued to repeat the misconduct. The Panel notes that there have been no further referrals to the HCPC since the Registrant made her self-referral in March 2020. The Panel has therefore decided that a Striking Off Order in this case would be too harsh and disproportionate a sanction.

111. The Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires, and the Panel takes the view that a reviewing panel may be assisted by the following:
1. a reflective piece addressing the deficiencies in the Registrant’s insight in relation to her misconduct;
2. evidence of CPD or other actions taken by the Registrant to maintain her knowledge and skills as a Operating Department Practitioner;
3. references or testimonials from people for whom the Registrant may be working in paid or unpaid employment, or from other people of good standing concerning her honesty during the period of her suspension;
4. the Registrant’s attendance in person or remotely, at the review hearing to assist the reviewing panel in relation to his insight.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to suspend the name of Ms Susan Glaiser from the Register for a period of 12 months from the date that this order comes into effect.

That the Registrar is directed to suspend the name of Ms Susan Glaiser from the Register for a period of 12 months from the date that this order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

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

Interim Order Application
1. Ms Lykourgou applied for an Interim Suspension Order. Ms Lykourgou submitted that given the Panel’s findings in relation to impairment, and the sanction it has imposed, there should be an Interim Suspension Order. Ms Lykourgou referred the Panel to the case of NH v GMC [2016] 2348 (Admin) and submitted that an average member of the public would be shocked or troubled to learn that the Registrant had continued to practise whilst awaiting the outcome of an appeal.

2. The Panel has decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence for the same reasons as set out in its determination above. The Registrant has received proper notice of the application in the email sent to her by the HCPC on 17 November 2022. The Panel considers that the Registrant has voluntarily waived her right to attend and that it is in the public interest that such an application is considered.

Interim Order
3. The Panel has decided to make an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, on grounds that it is in the public interest for the reasons set out in the determination above.

4. 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.

History of Hearings for Susan Glaiser